- Test - lists.nanog.org

BGP communities question
by Philip 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

Hello Nanog, I'm fairly new to running my employers multihomed BGP network with our own ASN. Things have been relatively smooth and stable for the past few months. We have 2 upstream ISP's giving us full routes. We have a single link to each provider, but I run two BGP sessions over that single link so I can have router redundancy. My routers are run in an active-passive configuration. With ISP-A, they have configured our 2 BGP sessions such that the secondary session (our passive router), although the BGP session is up, no traffic is directed there unless the primary router's BGP session goes away. This prevents asymmetric routing problems with my active/passive config. ISP-A attributes this config to the fact that we have 2 sessions, but on the same router, with a config on their router that looks like this: #show <http://r04.lsanca03.us.bb#show> running-config interface tenGigE 0/1/0/7 interface TenGigE0/1/0/7 description: 10GbE service-policy input cust1-in service-policy output cust1-out ipv4 address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.252 ipv4 address xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy 255.255.255.252 secondary ipv4 verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-self-ping ISP-B says they aren't able to do this active/passive config without us getting 2 physical links (kind of opposite what ISP-A is saying) They recommend that we use local pref and communities to direct traffic to our primary BGP session and only using the secondary session if the primary fails. Does that recommendation make sense? Will setting the local pref via ISP-B community strings accomplish this active/passive traffic split that I'm looking for? Looking through the documentation on this providers site about which community string needs to be set, it seems like I just need to make the primary router BGP session community string higher than the default, and the passive router BGP session community string lower than the default and that will get me the desired behavior. Is that the proper way of achieving the traffic flows for active / passive config from provider to my gear? Thank you, Philip

2 1

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World
by Brandon Butterworth 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka(a)seacom.mu> > Commercial trends have been moving farther and farther away > from, "How much bandwidth do you want to buy?" to, "How many > Tv channels, voice minutes and cloud recording can I get?", > particularly in much more developed markets Internet should be utility, many providing it don't wnat to be a utility and so try doing other services usually best left to specialists > As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act > together and play nice, before we all get run over by the > content owners Yes, I like to remind those engaging in peering wars and charging for access users to be careful when creating reasons for others to become their competition As a broadcaster we send our content direct to users over the air, there is opportunity in not making us do so for internet too (though it already happens, here in the UK Sky TV are a large ISP) brandon

3 2

Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
by Larry Sheldon 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

Remembering the things (which had to do with network operations) that I go banned for. One wonders why I felt bad about it, NANOG = NANAE us a slur on NANAE. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

1 0

On a future of open settlement free peering
by William Herrin 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

Howdy folks, It seems to me that we're moving in a direction where either ratioless, high-capacity settlement-free peering will be a industry requirement exercised voluntarily, or where some heavy-handed government regulation will compel some kind of interconnection that the holdouts find even less desirable. I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" before the weight of government crashes down on them -- regulation has no winners, only losers and bigger losers. And sometimes the worst thing that can happen is you get what you ask for with no opportunity to later change your mind. I'm curious what lies beyond that horizon. If we stipulate for the sake of the discussion that open peering is the way it going to be, a critical part of network neutrality, what exactly will that mean? Will it be permissible for one network to ask the other to pay a one-time port cost for the initial interconnect, assuming its representative of the actual cost of a one-time equipment addition? To what degree is redundancy a requirement? If a network refuses to peer in more than one chancy location, does that mean their peering policy isn't really open? Will a network be compliant if the open peering connections are only available in its own data center? Or will they need to be available in neutral data centers? Would a refusal to connect to neutral peering fabrics constitute a refusal to connect to smaller networks? Or is it reasonable to state that anybody who can't come up with 10 gig ports and cross-connects isn't of threshold size? Can a peering policy be open if it's regionally restricted? If my peering points for the mid-Atlantic states only announce routes tied to my mid-Atlantic customers and only propagate your routes to those mid-Atlantic customers, is that acceptable behavior? Or have I mis-served my customers if I don't pull all of them to the location you find it convenient to peer? Food for thought, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin(a)dirtside.com bill(a)herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

2 4

Re: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing
by vristevs＠ramapo.edu 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

The 6880 has a single fixed Sup 2T. I believe you meant the 6807. That's what we are looking at to replace our 6500s. There currently are no high density 10G cards out for the 6807 but our account rep tells us a 32 port 1/10G SFP+ line card is coming out in December. If it weren't for this new line card, we would probably lean toward a different solution.

1 0

Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
by McElearney, Kevin 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said >eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, >that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather >than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. > >I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated application performance issues.

6 8

Call for Presentations :: DNS-OARC Fall Workshop 2014
by Mehmet Akcin 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

NANOG, apologies if you have already seen this in a different list. DNS-OARC Fall Workshop 2014 Los Angeles, California, USA Schedule OARC meeting October 11-13 Program announcement August 29th (six weeks before the meeting) Submission deadline August 15th Call for Papers July 20th Meeting announcement July 20th Official announcement proposed text, feel free to edit Call for Presentations Next OARC Fall Workshop will take place in Los Angeles, California, USA on October 11th to the 13th, the weekend before ICANN51. On Monday October 13th there will be a joint session with ICANN Tech Day. OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for DNS data analysis tools and techniques. This workshop continues OARC's tradition of having meetings include a strong operational component. Presentations from DNS operators are particularly welcome. We'll also gladly accept talks from DNS researchers, as well as any other DNS-related subjects such as tools, visualizations, DNSSEC and novel uses of the DNS. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. Adopting practice from other conferences, a section of lighting talks will be available for short presentations. Workshop Milestones • 20 July 2014, Call for Presentations posted • 21 July 2014, Open for submissions • 15 August 2014, Deadline for submission • 29 August 2014, Final Program published • 9 October 2014, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for abstract submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/workshop-2014-10 The workshop will be organized on different tracks, depending on the topics. On Sunday October 12th we will have the more in depth technical presentations, and on Monday October 13th presentations that can benefit from a larger and broader audience. If you consider submitting a presentation, please let the Programme Committee know for which track in advance to help us organize the presentations tracks. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via (submissions(a)dns-oarc.net) if you have questions or concerns. Mehmet Akcin, for the OARC Program Committee (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)

1 0

SHDSL / Copper Loop testing
by Mike 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Howdy, I'm looking for reccomendations for a copper-loop test set that can effectively troubleshoot SHDSL. I'm looking for more than 'yup, I got sync' - it would be very helpful to be able to see noise/interference as well as calculate loop length, check bridge taps, and any other kind of metallic testing that would help to identify and isolate loop troubles. Thank you. Mike-

2 1

FTTH and DSLAM Access Vendors
by Colton Conor 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

I am looking for comparisons between the following FTTH GPON and VDSL2 access platforms. Has anyone recently compared the capabilities of each of these platforms? Alcatel-Lucent 7360 ISAM Adtran Total Access 5000 Calix E7 Cisco ME4600 Huawei MA5600T Zhone MXK They all look great on paper, but there has to be some key differences other than price. Besides the vendors listed above, is there anyone else in this market?

3 2

Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer
by Anurag Bhatia 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello everyone! I have quick question on how you provide full BGP table to downstream customers? Most of large networks have few border routers ("Internet gateways") which get full table feed and then they have "Access routers" on which customers are terminated. Now I don't think it makes sense to push full routing table on the "access routers" and simply their default points to border routers. In this scenario what is best practice for giving full table to downstream? 1. Having multi-hop BGP session with a loopback on "border router" for injecting full table in customer router and another BGP session with access router for receiving routes? (messy!) 2. Injecting full table in just all access routers so that it can be provided whenever needed? 3. Any other? Thanks in advance! -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> Skype: anuragbhatia.com PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2

5 9