- Test - lists.nanog.org

BGP / ISIS route recorder advice
by Ben Bartsch 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Greetings: I work for a REN and we are looking for advice on a route recorder. We have been working with Packet Design and I absolutely love their product RouteExplorer (well, everything except the price tag). I was wondering if anyone out there in NANOG land had any suggestions or recommendations on a product similar to their 3600 that can handle both ISIS and BGP (we have a goofy BGP config that includes a lot of RR clients so we need an appliance that can handle 7-8M routes if we do a full mesh with the recorder). I'm aware of iBGPlay, but have not been able to get them to answer emails requesting more information. If you can offer any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! -ben

1 0

RE: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
by Phil Bedard 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Cisco also now has the Nexus 6001 but I don't know of its ability to do BGP or support things like Netflow. 48x10GE+4x40GE in 1RU. Also likely doesn't have huge packet buffers. From: Piotr Sent: 1/30/2013 5:32 To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC Someone use this switches ? 1. Alacatel lucent omniswitch OS6900-X40 Deep packet buffers for simultaneous high-burst absorption in all ports gpl 28k$ 2. Hp 5900 af 48xg large buffer options - configurable buffers gpl 30k$ What is, exactly, buffer size ? I can't find in documentation best, Piotr

1 0

Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
by Piotr 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Someone use this switches ? 1. Alacatel lucent omniswitch OS6900-X40 Deep packet buffers for simultaneous high-burst absorption in all ports gpl 28k$ 2. Hp 5900 af 48xg large buffer options - configurable buffers gpl 30k$ What is, exactly, buffer size ? I can't find in documentation best, Piotr

1 0

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
by Jay Ashworth 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Brim" <swb(a)internet2.edu> > > (Actually, my approach if I was building it would be Layer 2 unless the > > resident wants a Layer 1 connection to {a properly provisioned ISP,some > > other location of theirs}. Best of both worlds.) > Right, and a public-private partnership model is more common than > having the city actually operate the network at any layer. Oh, sure; most muni's contract out the build, and often the day to day operation and customer support load, to a contractor. But that wouldn't really help as much in this case, I don't think; that contract would create an agency relationship, and the contractor would not protect such log data (if it existed, which for L1 and L2 service, it would not as this argument posits it) *from the responsible IT employees of the municipality*. Cheers, -- jr 'IANAL, I just play one on the Internet' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

6 6

Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
by Joe Maimon 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? Unfortunately the ones I have contain more humor than success. Story #1 Ethernet/Fiber service near Tampa ordered via partner, misordered as MPLS, re-ordered as vpls. Delivered by June, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a MAC off the NID ever since. Similarly, I have been unsuccessful in getting the LEC onsite to troubleshoot the NID. My last update was a due date of 2/22, after they missed a 1/17 date. Nope, not a typo. Story #2 Ethernet/Fiber service in Phoenix ordered via partner. Apparently, in order to save on the expense of the NID/switch combo, the LEC ran the second set of fiber strands up to an existing customer in the building, using dedicated conduit from the building dmarc (which is accessible by our customer). They then instructed us to run copper back from their customer back to our customer's space. This recipient of the new fiber refused permission (not to mention being unhappy at unwittingly providing shared service). LEC claims the order was marked closed and delivered and any changes are new orders that will take 45 days. There has not been an update since, although presumably, we are on the 45 day clock. Due on the 1st, delivered in mid December, this is a month late with no timely resolution in sight. I have been assured by everyone involved that escalation has been pursued to the highest levels, including pleading with the CEO of the unwitting service providing customer, to no avail. If someone from Centurylink who can make things happen and be privy to the real dealings would please reach out directly to me, I have high hopes that there can be happy endings for these stories. Or if anybody has any useful suggestions, ideas, advice, or even commiserations, all are welcome to share. Best, Joe

14 21

Ethernet Service at 150 S. Market Street, SJ
by Christopher Nielsen 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

Hello, We're in need of low-bandwidth ethernet service in our cage at Datapipe at 150 S. Market Street for OOB. Any recommendations? TIA -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

5 7

MessageLabs/MXLogic issues
by Thomas York 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

Have any of you noticed issued delivering email through MessageLabs to people who use MXLogic for spam/AV filtering? I've seen it more and more over the last month, to the point that I have to call 5-10 people a day to tell them to whitelist our domain in MXLogic. It isn't specific to a certain domain, just to Symantec/MessageLabs IPs. I've also seen this issue once or twice with domains hosted with Gmail, but those have cleared themselves up. -- Thomas York

2 1

RE: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
by Summers, William 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

We use IBM networking (used to be BLADE networks) Rackswitch 8264. They will do TRILL, and have multi-chassis link aggregation, they call vLAG. We use this for cross datacenter aggregation. They do have the L3 features you are looking for and BGP as a possibility, but no full tables. It is a cut-through switch (although this can be toggled in software to store and forward in later switch os). I believe, although I can't find the doc where I read this at the moment, the packet buffer is 2G, but shared among ports. Enterasys S-Series is also an option, but the 10G port densities are much lower. S-Series has large packet buffers, chassis bonding, and L3 features (some modules support full bgp tables).

1 0

Fwd: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
by Nick Hilliard 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

andy(a)shady.org replied: Subject: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:25:57 +0000 From: andy <andy(a)shady.org> To: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> CC: Piotr <piotr.1234(a)interia.pl>, nanog(a)nanog.org Force10's S4810 isnt bad, we use these for a 10G 48 port box that doesnt require Ultra Low latency. http://www.scribd.com/doc/90301756/Dell-Force10-S4810-Spec-Sheet Supports TRILL in some way too, Ive not had any major issues with this box, 1 or 2 bugs, but force10 (now dell) seem quick to fix these. They also have the Z9000 series, Ive not looked at this, but it might be worth having a quick look and see if it fits. on the rest, what nick said..... :) On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:58:14AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 29/01/2013 11:27, Piotr wrote: > > Extreme 670 looks good but they have small port buffers. It can be also > > some small chassis with line cards but the cost per 10G ports is too big.. > > the extreme x670, juniper ex4550, brocade ICX6550 and arista 7150 will most > of this, and probably many others too. > > None of them will do trill. The Extreme X670 and Juniper EX4550 will both > do VPLS, though. The X670 won't do BGP. > > You won't find a box of this form with large port buffers. There don't > appear to be any of these boxes on the market at the moment, probably > because none of the switch vendors want to bite the bottom out of their > more lucrative chassis-based switches. This is a good market opening for a > new vendor - there is no technical reason why this couldn't be done. > > Nick > > > -- andy andy(a)shady.org ----------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience. JNCIE #742 -----------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
by Scott Weeks 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

--- mureninc(a)gmail.com wrote: From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc(a)gmail.com> > Here is a link to the Australian National Broadband site, describing how the > existing telco-owned copper network will be "switched off": > http://www.nbn.gov.au/2012/12/03/did-you-know-that-our-copper-network-is-be… Do they have any customers object? I recall a few recent stories about Verizon having problems after Sandy with NYC customers insisting that they want DSL restored instead of the FiOS brought in. -------------------------------------------- Having listened to ausnog for a while, I'm not so sure about how well that has/is worked/working for Australia. scott

1 0