- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: A9K-MPA-20X1GE in ASR9001
by Nikolay Shopik 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

I don't have any GBIC/SPF inserted in it right now, it just turn off whole module. So won't allow me even fpd upgrade. On 25/10/13 14:02, Ray Ludendorff wrote: > > > It means that you did not purchase a original Cisco GBIC for the interface .. > Therefore it will not be TAC supported if you have problems with the interface. > There is a command to override this error and still use the interfaces. > > Sent from mobile device > >> On Oct 25, 2013, at 11:56, "Nikolay Shopik" <shopik(a)inblock.ru> wrote: >> >> Hey, anyone had issues with A9K-MPA-20X1GE in ASR9001? >> >> It get disabled for us after 20 seconds finishing initialization, with >> such message. >> >> %PLATFORM-SCC-2-BAD_ID_HW : Failed Identification Test in 0/130/0 [1/0] >> The module in 0/130/0 in this router may not be a genuineCisco product. >> >>

1 0

Re: BGP failure analysis and recommendations
by Scott Weeks 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

--- courtneysmith(a)comcast.net wrote: From: Courtney Smith <courtneysmith(a)comcast.net> > From: JRC NOC <nospam-nanog(a)jensenresearch.com> > Regrettably, during the outage our BGP session remained active and we > continued receiving full routes from the affected AS. And our prefixes > continued to be advertised at their border. However basically none of the Did you provider provide an official written RFO yet? ------------------------------------------------------------ When deciding to keep or change providers after a major mistake like this is do they send out an honest description of the mistake and what has been done to stop it from happening again in the future. Corporatespeak reports are grounds for dismissal! ;-) scott

1 0

Cogent 100M DIA in Denver
by Tri Tran 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

They're lit in the bulding and have a much faster installation interval. How reliable are they? Tri Tran

12 13

Re: BGP failure analysis and recommendations
by Courtney Smith 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

On Oct 24, 2013, at 2:13 AM, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:40:34 -0400 > From: JRC NOC <nospam-nanog(a)jensenresearch.com> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: BGP failure analysis and recommendations > Message-ID: > <5.1.0.14.0.20131023214304.0396ead0(a)authsmtp.jensenresearch.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Hello Nanog - > > On Saturday, October 19th at about 13:00 UTC we experienced an IP failure > at one of our sites in the New York area. > It was apparently a widespread outage on the East coast, but I haven't seen > it discussed here. > > We are multihomed, using EBGP to three (diverse) upstream providers. One > provider experienced a hardware failure in a core component at one POP. > Regrettably, during the outage our BGP session remained active and we > continued receiving full routes from the affected AS. And our prefixes > continued to be advertised at their border. However basically none of the > traffic between those prefixes over that provider was delivered. The bogus > routes stayed up for hours. We shutdown the BGP peering session when the > nature of the problem became clear. This was effective. I believe that all > customer BGP routes were similarly affected, including those belonging to > some large regional networks and corporations. I have raised the questions > below with the provider but haven't received any information or advice. > > Did you provider provide an official written RFO yet? Courtney Smith courtneysmith(a)comcast.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

1 0

EFF needs your help to stop patent trolls
by Peter Eckersley 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

Hi network operators, Apologies for a non-technical post, but I believe this is an issue of relevance to the NANOG community. EFF is collecting signatures from prominent engineers and technologists for a letter to the US Congress calling for reform of the software patent system to protect inventors and inventive companies against patent trolls, who use patents for extortionate purposes without ever shipping any products. We're doing this now because there is a window of political opportunity to actually get this problem fixed in the next few months. Draft text of the letter is below. If you broadly agree and would like to sign on, please send me a private reply with: - Your name; - A 1-3 line bio that summarizes your main career achievements, which might be a current or past affiliation, RFCs you wrote, networks you built, companies you founded, etc; - Whether you hold US patents; if so, how many you hold, and (if you know them) the patent numbers ============================================================= Dear Senators and Congressmen, We, the undersigned, are a group of inventors, technologists and entrepreneurs. Many of us have founded technology businesses; we have invented many of the protocols, systems and devices that make the Internet work, and we are collectively listed as the inventors on [n thousand] patents. We write to you today about the U.S. patent system. That system is broken. Based on our experiences building and deploying new digital technologies, we believe that software patents are doing more harm than good. Perhaps it is time to reexamine the idea, dating from the 1980s, that government-issued monopolies on algorithms, protocols and data structures are the best way to promote the advancement of computer science. But that will be a hard task, and one we don't expect to happen quickly. Unfortunately, aspects of the problem have become so acute they must be addressed immediately. Broad, vague patents covering software-type inventions--some of which we ourselves are listed as inventors on--are a malfunctioning component of America's inventive machinery. This is particularly the case when those patents end up in the hands of non-practicing patent trolls. These non-practicing entities do not make or sell anything. Their exploitation of patents as a tool for extortion is undermining America’s technological progress; patent trolls are collecting taxes on innovation by extracting billions of dollars in dubious licensing fees, and wasting the time and management resources of creative businesses. Many of us would have achieved much less in our careers if the trolling problem had been as dire in past decades as it is now. Some legislative proposals under current consideration would fix the trolling problem. These include: - Requiring that patent lawsuits actually explain which patents are infringed by which aspects of a defendant's technology, and how; - Making clear who really owns the patent at issue; - Allowing courts to shift fees to winning parties, making it rational for those threatened with an egregious patent suit to actually fight against the threat rather than paying what amounts to protection money; - Ensuring that those who purchase common, off-the-shelf technologies are shielded if they are sued for using them; and - Increasing opportunities for streamlined patent review at the patent office. While subduing the trolling threat, these proposed changes will not fix the software patent problem. Congress should consider ways to stop software patents from interfering with open standards and open source software; from being claimed on problems, rather than solutions; and from being drafted so obscurely that they teach us nothing and cannot be searched. Congress needs to examine the very question of whether their net impact is positive. But for now, we urge you to implement simple and urgently necessary reforms. We believe in the promise of technology and the power of creation to increase access to information, to create jobs, and to make the world a better place. Please do not let patent trolls continue to frustrate that purpose. -- Peter Eckersley pde(a)eff.org Technology Projects Director Tel +1 415 436 9333 x131 Electronic Frontier Foundation Fax +1 415 436 9993

1 0

Looking for Juniper P-1GE-SFP-QPP in NYC area
by Eric Wieling 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

We had a P-1GE-SFP-QPP card go out today, looking for a source in the NYC area to get it replaced ASAP. Thanks!

1 0

Point to Point Ethernet request
by Phibee Network Operation Center 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

Hello, Looking for a solution to connect two sitesto my POP: Site A: Frederick, MD 21701 USA Site B: Archbold, OH 43502 USA My POP: New York (into a DC: Equinix or Telehouse New York) A Layer 2 connection at 4, 6 or 10 Mbits Any one know a good operator for this ? Best Regards Jerome SCHEVINGT

6 5

Fundamental questions of backbone design
by Anurag Bhatia 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

Hello everyone I have some fundamental questions about backbone design. Feel free to point me to any discussions/presentation material related to these questions. 1. As I understand it's (sort off) common practice to give highest localpref to customer routes then peering and finally transit. Does this works well or you see issues with people who have 10+ prepends on some peering routes calling you to not send traffic via those circuits? Does it makes sense to put a rule to avoid routes 2-3 AS path away when changing local preference? 2. If I have more peering capacity and relatively less capacity between my own PoPs and I start injecting routes in my IGP then how to prevent change of choking of backbone? Is it standard practice to have more capacity on backbone then peering links? Or I have to inject less routes in IGP - say a few % of total routes? 3. How can I maintain use of routes I am learning from various other networks (transit+peers+customer) across my IGP? Is BGP community tagging good way out? 4. How is iBGP Vs OSPF for IGP? I keep on hearing that OSPF is good & lot more faster in changing routes during a breakdown as compared to slow hold time based iBGP session. Is there's more clear comparison of limitations of both when designing? Appreciate your time & help. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> Skype: anuragbhatia.com

6 8

Re: 80 Gbps ?
by jstuxuhu0816 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

2 1

Re: Possible DNS issues at Networksolutions aka WORLDNIC.COM?
by Meshier, Brent 23 Oct '13

23 Oct '13

Three DNS providers I trust: http://www.neustar.biz/enterprise/dns-services http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/network-intelligence… http://www.akamai.com/html/solutions/enhanced_dns.html -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.lists@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:41 AM To: Ryan Mcdermott Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Possible DNS issues at Networksolutions aka WORLDNIC.COM? On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ryan Mcdermott <blhack(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Recommend alternatives? > --- Please refer to http://www.amherst.com/amherst-email-disclaimer/ for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.

1 0