November 2018 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Measurements of Internet traffic by protocol?
by Jeremy Gillula 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

Hi all, Are there statistics out there for the relative "popularity" of different application-layer protocols by network traffic (i.e. HTTP(S) vs SMTP(S) vs other protocols)? I realize it will be different from different vantage points (e.g. a transit provider vs a small residential ISP), but we'd love to find *any* sources of hard numbers out there. I've tried to search for data, but the best I could come up with is at least ten years out of date. Thanks in advance! -- | Jeremy Gillula, Ph.D. | Tech Projects Director | Electronic Frontier Foundation | (415) 436-9333 x158 | jeremy(a)eff.org | @the_zeroth_law | Want to support EFF? Donate! <https://supporters.eff.org/donate/>

1 0

Contractor in Sydney - Australia area for RFC/loop tests
by Jeroen Wunnink 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

Can anyone recommend a contractor in the Australia - Sydney area that can do some line tests, so RFC, loop and power measurements at a local datacenter at fairly short notice? Our NOC is a bit in a tight spot and is looking for options. Jeroen Wunnink Sr. Manager - Integration Engineering www.gtt.net<http://www.gtt.net/> [id:image001.png@01D37331.D1301F60]

1 0

CrownCastle/Lightower/Fibertech peering...
by John Von Essen 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

Anyone on the list or no someone at CrownCastle AS46887 for peering relationships? They dont have anything listed on peeringdb.com. Thanks John

2 1

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 130, Issue 23
by DurgaPrasad - DatasoftComnet 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

Hi, It's better to copy and take help of the IXP team where you are physically connected. Rgds/DP 9849111010 Sent from my iPhone. Pls excuse brevity and typos if any. > On 25-Nov-2018, at 5:30 PM, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Amazon Peering (Mike Hammett) > 2. Re: Amazon Peering (Darin Steffl) > 3. Re: Amazon Peering (JASON BOTHE) > 4. RE: Internet diameter? (Hal Murray) > 5. DWDM forums (Ben Cannon) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 10:38:49 -0600 (CST) > From: Mike Hammett <nanog(a)ics-il.net> > To: Darin Steffl <darin.steffl(a)mnwifi.com> > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Amazon Peering > Message-ID: > <1966321065.11280.1543077528570.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I've e-mailed my contacts there a couple times on people's behalf. No response yet. > > It seems like a lot of organizations need 1 more person in their peering departments. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Darin Steffl" <darin.steffl(a)mnwifi.com> > To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 10:21:51 PM > Subject: Amazon Peering > > > Hey all, > > > Does anyone have a direct contact to get a peering session established with Amazon at an IX? I sent a peering request Dec 2017 and two more times this Sept and Nov with no response. > > > I sent to peering(a)amazon.com and received one automated response back so I know they received my email but nothing since. > > > > > > -- > > > Darin Steffl > Minnesota WiFi > www.mnwifi.com > 507-634-WiFi > Like us on Facebook >

2 1

RE: Internet diameter?
by Hal Murray 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

Keith Medcalf said: > "just static content" would be more accurate ... and using http rather than https > There were many attempts at this by Johhny-cum-lately ISPs back in the 90's > -- particularly Telco and Cableco's -- with their "transparent poxies". > Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually > provide the customer with what the customer had purchased. One of the complications in this area is an extra layer of logging which could turn into privacy invasion. I'm pretty sure it was Comcast, but a quick search didn't find a good reference. Many years ago, there were a lot of complaints when customers discovered that their transparent proxy web site traffic was getting logged. Comcast said they weren't using it for anything beyond normal operations work, but nobody believed them. Shortly after that, they gave up on proxying. I'm sure the general reputation of modern Telcos and Cablecos for privacy invasion didn't help. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.

3 2

Cheap switch with a couple 100G
by Mike Hammett 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

I keep hearing how cheap 100G is compared to 40G and it doesn't seem to hold true. Prove me wrong. Cisco Nexus and Arista both have switches with 48x 10G ports and 2x - 6x 40G ports for under $1k. Swap those 40G for 100G and you're at $5k - $7k. Am I missing some cheap switches with 100G? I ask this because the transport companies seem to have given up on 40G. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

11 25

OpenDNS Issue (US Cali or West Coast?)
by Ray Van Dolson 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

Getting issues from west-coast US clients trying to access services like O365, Yahoo, GMail, etc. east-coast US doesn't seem to have the same issue. DNS servers are: 208.67.222.222 208.67.220.220 Switching to Google (8.8.8.8) fixes the issue. Anyone else seeing this? Ray PS: Also posted to dns-operations

1 0

RPKI publication
by Jeff McAdams 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

OK, I'm trying to do the responsible thing and further the progress and deployment of RPKI. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on a path forward for doing validation and routing-policy based on ROA validation. However, I also feel like I'm really banging my head against a wall trying to set up publication of ROAs. $employer has IP space from several RIRs, and enough space that there is a pretty strong desire to have our own publication system for this, but I'm really struggling to find extant software to do this. Are there people doing their own publication? Or is everyone just using Hosted ARIN/RIPE/APNIC/etc. systems? My colleagues and I feel like trying to manage and automate processes against multiple RIRs is not ideal, so setting up a publication system that can use the Up-Down protocol, or perhaps publish our own publication points, or whatever is the best way to handle this would be desired. Can anyone point me to some facilitating resources on this? Software packages that are reasonably current and maintained and not a total pain to deploy? -- Jeff

4 7

Re: 6PE on ALU
by Liam Murphy 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

Hi, I am having the same issue …. was there ever a solution posted? Cheers, Liam.

1 0

Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G
by Mike Hammett 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

I don't need 32 of them, though. 2 - 6 would be fine, 4 - 6 would be ideal. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "joel jaeggli" <joelja(a)gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog(a)ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:41:07 AM Subject: Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 25, 2018, at 06:38, Mike Hammett <nanog(a)ics-il.net> wrote: > > I keep hearing how cheap 100G is compared to 40G and it doesn't seem to hold true. Prove me wrong. > > Cisco Nexus and Arista both have switches with 48x 10G ports and 2x - 6x 40G ports for under $1k. Swap those 40G for 100G and you're at $5k - $7k. > > Am I missing some cheap switches with 100G? 1 / 10 / 40 Gb/s switches are made with low end T2 parts like the 56450. A low end 100G switch is tomahawk 32x100 or tomawhawk 2 or T3 which are all basically 128x25Gb/s asics (or Qumran/Jericho) which’s is effectively more than one asic and is priced accordingly. So a mix of 1Gb/s copper ports backed by fast silicon is not immediately forthcoming at a low price. 32x100 switches are available at order of $200 a port which seems like pretty good deal to me but you’re amortizing the silicon across all the ports. > > I ask this because the transport companies seem to have given up on 40G. > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com >

1 0