- Test - lists.nanog.org

Level3 IPv6 peering with HE only in London?
by Dave Sotnick 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

Hello Nanog, Looks like Level3's only IPv6 route to HE is via London right now: Show Level 3 (Las Vegas, NV) Traceroute to www.he.net 1 vl-5.bar1.LasVegas1.Level3.net (2001:1900:2F::1) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 vl-11.bar2.LasVegas1.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::3C6) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 vl-4045.car1.Denver1.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::276) 84 msec 228 msec 224 msec 4 vl-4081.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::32) 20 msec 20 msec 20 msec 5 vl-4042.edge1.Chicago2.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::36) 44 msec 44 msec 44 msec 6 vl-4067.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::1D) 48 msec 212 msec 224 msec 7 vl-4061.car2.NewYork2.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::22) 184 msec 216 msec 232 msec 8 vl-4080.car1.NewYork2.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::F1) 80 msec 80 msec 80 msec 9 vl-4041.car1.NewYork1.Level3.net (2001:1900:4:1::101) 80 msec 80 msec 80 msec 10 vl-4086.edge3.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:6:1::11) 176 msec 144 msec 164 msec 11 vl-4081.edge3.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:5:1::102) 136 msec 132 msec vl-4081.edge4.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:5:1::106) 148 msec 12 2001:1900:5:3::11E 160 msec 156 msec 160 msec 13 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net (2001:470:0:128::1) 344 msec 208 msec 200 msec 14 10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.lax1.he.net (2001:470:0:10E::1) 276 msec 260 msec 268 msec 15 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.fmt2.he.net (2001:470:0:18D::1) 272 msec 272 msec 324 msec 16 10gigabitethernet2-1.core1.fmt1.he.net (2001:470:0:2D::1) 288 msec 272 msec 276 msec 17 * * * 18 * * * Confirmed by L3's looking glasses ( http://lg.level3.net/traceroute/traceroute.cgi?site=lvg1&target=www.he.net&… ) and my own corporate IPv6 connection from Level 3. I opened a ticket with Level 3. Anyone else seen this? -Dave

3 3

IPv6 support via Charter | Ideas on BGP Tunnel via HE
by Anurag Bhatia 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Hello, Does anyone here has clues on IPv6 support via Charter? We recently got BGP up on the connection and they denied for IPv6 support for now. Support engineer gave expected time of something like end of year which seems very late as per our plans. Is situation same for everyone who sits in downstream of Charter? Also, does it makes sense to go for BGP Tunnel for now? I just setup IPv6 Tunnel via Hurricane Electric. Latency seems pretty much OK ~ 10-15ms of overhead. Yet to test other parameters. I heard Tunnels are usually bad. Can someone tell how to test this tunnel setup to confirm if there is a performance issue or not? I am thinking of writing a quick bash script and run via cron to test latency, packet loss and bandwidth throughput for couple of days. If anyone has better idea, please let me know. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com

9 11

RPKI field experiences
by Alex Band 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

We just released a new version of our RPKI relying party software, RIPE NCC RPKI Validator 2.0.4: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/certification/tools-an… There are now more than 7,200 RPKI valid BGP route announcements entered in the global system, so there is a solid data set to gain operational experience with. We would really like you to try it out and report back on the usability and reliability. ARINs Pilot information is here in case you want to create some of your own ROAs: https://www.arin.net/resources/rpki.html As always, the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator requires no configuration and has no dependencies other than Java 1.6 and rsync available on your system. Simply unzip the package, run ./bin/rpki-validator from the base directory and browse to http://localhost:8080 Cheers, Alex

1 0

Re: Cheap Juniper Gear for Lab
by Scott Weeks 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

--- mysidia(a)gmail.com wrote: From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia(a)gmail.com> The Juniper ERX edge routers are what isn't "real" JunOS. It's as if they were trying to make a clone of the IOS CLI: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junose10.2/information-products/topic… ------------------------------------------ That's because Juniper bought the ERX series from Unisphere. It's not a "real" JunOS. My suggestion: if you make a lot of changes stay away from the ERXs, but if you don't do much to them they will mostly purr along just fine. I was running them fairly hard, with 30K plus ATM/DSL subs per router... scott

1 0

AMS-IX for local loop
by Shacolby Jackson 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

I know this is a bit off topic since Amsterdam isn't exactly in North America but... Has anyone used AMS-IX for a private interconnect from one datacenter to another to avoid a classic local loop to another party or provider? For example, I'm in Equinix but might want to connect directly to someone at Interxion. -shac

3 3

AT&T DSL bypass first line
by Brandon Ewing 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

I've been an AT&T DSL customer for 3+ years, with no issues until they started sending people into my neighborhood to "start retrofitting for UVerse". Since they've visited, my PPPoE has dropped once an hour, many times requiring me to restart my router (Cisco 877) to get my virtual interface to come back up. Speaking with the front line on the phone has given me nothing but problems (in their defense, I do have a non-standard modem) -- could someone with knowledge provide me with a way to bypass the CSRs and speak to someone with clue to work out debug logs and figure out why I am suddenly an unhappy AT&T customer? -- Brandon Ewing (nicotine(a)warningg.com)

6 6

Cablevision / Lightpath / Optimum Online hard limit
by Babak Pasdar 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

Hello, Is there anyone on the Cablevision / Lightpath / Optimum Online IP team that can work with us on a hard 60mbps limit between us and a client's network? Thanks Babak -- Babak Pasdar Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (f) 212.584.9999 | www.BatBlue.com Bat Blue: AS 25885 | BGP Policy | Peering Policy Watch: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video Read: Official Provider for ESPN X Games

1 0

FYI Coresite xconn price increases
by David Miller 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

Just as an FYI, anyone with space and xconns in a Coresite facility (e.g. OW) might want to double check their recent invoices. Coresite more than doubled our MRC on existing and new fiber xconns. I have heard from others that they also had the same increase across the board for all xconns at all locations. We had this more than double price increase on our latest invoices even at locations where we, by contract, locked in our xconn prices. We are fighting this with their folks now. It appears that they did a global search and replace in their billing system for xconn prices without regard to the actual contract. -DMM

1 0

Fwd: AusNOG 2012 Call For Presentations
by Mark Prior 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

In case anyone wants a trip down under in September. Mark. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AusNOG 2012 Call For Presentations Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 20:25:30 +0930 From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc(a)mmc.com.au> To: Ausnog(a)ausnog.net (ausnog(a)ausnog.net) <ausnog(a)ausnog.net> Call for presentations for AusNOG 2012 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Langham Hotel **Melbourne** 6 & 7 September, 2012 Notes =-=-=- The AusNOG organisers have decided to change the name of the conference to reflect the year instead of the number of the event. So this year's conference is going to be known as AusNOG 2012. It's hoped this will remove some confusion. AusNOG 2012 is being held in Melbourne for the first time. The organisers encourage Melbourne based network operators, especially those that have not previously attended an AusNOG, will take advantage of this opportunity to not only attend the meeting but also present! Topics =-=-=-= Internet operations can be a broad topic and the presentation selection committee will be short-listing presentations in the following focus areas: * Improving the redundancy/resiliency/sustainability of your network * Making leaps in service or network availability * Taking the network operations BCP to the next level * Using 'offline' communications tools to keep the network working * How technology is changing network architectures * Evolution in network architectures and scaling issues Other topics which are of interest to the network operator community are also welcome at AusNOG 2012. Naturally, presentations of a marketing nature are not welcome at this technical event. Notes to presenters =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Preference will be given to presentations that result in actual operational outcomes. Session speakers should be prepared to present for 30 minutes. Keynote speakers will be expected to present for 45 minutes to 1 hour. Short presentations of strong operational content are also acceptable. Once the final slides are submitted, changes will only be permitted where the presentation requires the most up to date information or data. By submitting a presentation for consideration in the AusNOG 2012 programme, and if selected the presenter will allow AusNOG to: * Take photographs of the presentation and presenter. * Record and rebroadcast video and audio of the presentation and presenter. * Redistribute, the presentation slides, audio, video, and photographs electronically, on the AusNOG website, or otherwise but leaving all intellectual property in the hands of presenter or rightful property holder where possible[1]. Deadlines =-=-=-=-=- 01 June: Submission of presentation title, presentation description (300 words), and presenter biography (200-400 words) 15 July: Presenters notified of their acceptance status as an AusNOG 2012 presentation. August 29: Submission of final presentation slides as Portable Document Format (pdf), PowerPoint, or Keynote. Provision of a recent digital photograph (<500k) of the presenter. All submissions must be sent to organisers at ausnog.net. A separate call for lightning talks will be made closer to the AusNOG 2012 event [1]: AusNOG accepts that some speakers are unable to allow us to archive their presentation due to company or corporate policy, and if the situation arises AusNOG will delete all copies in its possession after the presentation.

1 0

Re: Question about peering
by Joel M Snyder 08 Apr '12

08 Apr '12

>It seems like that problem could be overcome by making the >IX a cooperative owned by the members, maybe? Even if an IX is a cooperative, that doesn't say anything about their costs and the costs of interconnection. Networks and buildings and cross-connects can get cheap for lots of reasons, but the nature of the ownership isn't really a factor. Cooperatives can be as poorly run or have as high costs as any commercial facility. In fact, you could argue that without some cross-subsidy of co-lo or one of the providers 'donating' space, a small cooperative is likely to be more expensive to put together than a large colo facility that has lots of revenue streams. Or you could argue the opposite. I'm just pointing out that motivation and ownership don't necessarily dictate final costs. That being said... >I am in almost that exact position (A peering n00b network) - Of >couse, I'm fairly certain I'm paying sucker prices, but I can get a >gigE to any2 at 55 s market for less than a third the price you quote. Well, bully for you, but at this very instant I'm looking at a contract from PCCW which has a component of a cross-connect in Telecity London (Harbour Exchange) where the cross-connect has been priced out at USD 2400/month (maybe that also includes 1U of space; it's hard to tell). I do understand that this is NANOG with emphasis on the "NA" part, and so costs in other geographies may not be all that interesting, but some facilities do charge an arm and a leg (or maybe PCCW is screwing us over on the proposal). jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms

1 0