- Test - lists.nanog.org

Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
by goemon＠anime.net 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? I have tried the usual channels (abuse(a)limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results. -Dan

2 1

Problems with removing NAT from a network
by ML 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

I've got a customer that is looking to multihome with upstreams in two POPs. Currently they multihome in one POP and utilize a single edge router for some one to one NAT and some PAT for their users. Before they turn up the BGP peer in the new POP I've advised them to abolish NAT once and for all in order to avoid issues with non-stateful NAT between network edges and possible asymmetric routing of their Internet traffic. The PAT can be removed easily enough. The tricky part is the one-one NAT. They have quite a few systems which have 1918 IPs which they claim "cannot be changed". At least not without some painful rebuilds of criticals systems which have these IPs deeply embedded in their configs. Has anyone here had to fix this kind of problem before? Is there a solution that would allow NAT to offloaded to a smaller device hanging off each edge router that can communicate state between each other in case traffic is asymmetrically routed?

18 47

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61
by Glenn Kelley 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past. We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future issues for exactly this reason. HP is a great partner! If you need a router check out vYatta or pfSense - pfSense for the low end of course. - Both are open - Both have paid support and we are very happy with them. Glenn On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:52 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: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Brandon Kim) > 2. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Thomas Donnelly) > 3. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Greg Whynott) > 4. Re: Satellite IP (Jay Ashworth) > 5. Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > (goemon(a)anime.net) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500 > From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com> > Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: <greg.whynott(a)oicr.on.ca> > Cc: nanog group <nanog(a)nanog.org>, khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com > Message-ID: <BLU158-w56696A3677B43628EE789ADC0E0(a)phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > > to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. > > > > ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" > > > > > >> From: Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca >> To: brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com >> CC: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com; nanog(a)nanog.org >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >> >> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interopera… ). >> >> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. >> >> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. >> >> -g >> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: >> >>> >>> To your point Andrey, >>> >>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one >>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you pointed out, get all Cisco! >>> >>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are being sincere(sarcasm). >>> >>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should >>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to another vendor. >>> >>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried their hardest to support you..... >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>>> >>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that >>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and >>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides. >>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Avaya >>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling between >>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and >>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them anymore. >>>> >>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the network, the >>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good technical/financial >>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in those >>>> cases. >>>> >>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in my >>>> experience. >>>> >>>> My $0.02 >>>> >>>> Andrey >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3. >>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. >>>>> >>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried to use >>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was a bad >>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, >>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. Then >>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to say Cisco >>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and handled >>>>> better when stuff hits the fan. >>>>> >>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable >>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC requirements >>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has always >>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed to >>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they have been >>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the other >>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be beta >>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our firmware >>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the smart net >>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with unrestricted license >>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on options, >>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more? >>>>> >>>>> -g >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrey Khomyakov >>>> [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com] >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600 > From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <op.vo32lwi8wjyiia@osprey> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim > <brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com> wrote: > >> >> >> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. >> >> >> >> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, >> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" > > I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an > engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying > another vendor they raise an eyebrow. > >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca >>> To: brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com >>> CC: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com; nanog(a)nanog.org >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 >>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>> >>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt >>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability >>> solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into >>> during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, >>> ( >>> http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interopera… >>> ). >>> >>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to >>> help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd >>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to >>> do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people >>> don't mix gear".. >>> >>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. >>> >>> -g >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> To your point Andrey, >>>> >>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger >>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one >>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason >>> you pointed out, get all Cisco! >>>> >>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are >>> being sincere(sarcasm). >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their >>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should >>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to >>> another vendor. >>>> >>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least >>> tried their hardest to support you..... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com >>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>>>> >>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say >>> that >>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and >>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both >>> sides. >>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and >>> Avaya >>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling >>> between >>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and >>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them >>> anymore. >>>>> >>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the >>> network, the >>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good >>> technical/financial >>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in >>> those >>>>> cases. >>>>> >>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least >>> in my >>>>> experience. >>>>> >>>>> My $0.02 >>>>> >>>>> Andrey >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott >>> <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal >>> L2/L3. >>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. >>>>>> >>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried >>> to use >>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it >>> was a bad >>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, >>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. >>> Then >>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to >>> say Cisco >>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and >>> handled >>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan. >>>>>> >>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable >>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC >>> requirements >>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has >>> always >>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed >>> to >>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they >>> have been >>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the >>> other >>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be >>> beta >>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our >>> firmware >>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the >>> smart net >>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with >>> unrestricted license >>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on >>> options, >>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more? >>>>>> >>>>>> -g >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andrey Khomyakov >>>>> [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com] >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any >>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was >>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message >>> may not be that of the organization. >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500 > From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: Thomas Donnelly <tad1214(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <DF852A5F-04B3-4F96-B1FC-955367976EF6(a)oicr.on.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling your sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the tech on the phone. Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the clout to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor. his pay comes from you, you pay him, he works for 2. > > -g > > > On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim >> <brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. >>> >>> >>> >>> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, >>> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" >> >> I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an >> engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying >> another vendor they raise an eyebrow. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca >>>> To: brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com >>>> CC: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com; nanog(a)nanog.org >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 >>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>> >>>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt >>>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability >>>> solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into >>>> during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, >>>> ( >>>> http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interopera… >>>> ). >>>> >>>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to >>>> help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd >>>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to >>>> do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people >>>> don't mix gear".. >>>> >>>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. >>>> >>>> -g >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To your point Andrey, >>>>> >>>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger >>>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one >>>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason >>>> you pointed out, get all Cisco! >>>>> >>>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are >>>> being sincere(sarcasm). >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their >>>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should >>>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to >>>> another vendor. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least >>>> tried their hardest to support you..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com >>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>>>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>>>>> >>>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say >>>> that >>>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and >>>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both >>>> sides. >>>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and >>>> Avaya >>>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling >>>> between >>>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and >>>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them >>>> anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the >>>> network, the >>>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good >>>> technical/financial >>>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in >>>> those >>>>>> cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least >>>> in my >>>>>> experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> My $0.02 >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrey >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott >>>> <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal >>>> L2/L3. >>>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried >>>> to use >>>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it >>>> was a bad >>>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, >>>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. >>>> Then >>>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to >>>> say Cisco >>>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and >>>> handled >>>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable >>>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC >>>> requirements >>>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has >>>> always >>>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed >>>> to >>>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they >>>> have been >>>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the >>>> other >>>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be >>>> beta >>>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our >>>> firmware >>>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the >>>> smart net >>>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with >>>> unrestricted license >>>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on >>>> options, >>>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -g >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Andrey Khomyakov >>>>>> [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >>>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any >>>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was >>>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message >>>> may not be that of the organization. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> > > > -- > > This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 -0500 (EST) > From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> > Subject: Re: Satellite IP > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <18554927.984.1294695210090.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> > >>> Why the hostility, Valdis? >> >> As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make >> all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact >> science, >> it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have enough >> contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every >> single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in his >> follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope another >> provider can >> come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy >> and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual provider >> guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea. > > I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not. > > "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking > strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me. > > :-) > > And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the > transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular > environment. > >> Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;) > > Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper, > and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder. > > Cheers, > -- jra > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST) > From: goemon(a)anime.net > Subject: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > To: "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101101349450.19712(a)sasami.anime.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > > I have tried the usual channels (abuse(a)limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results. > > -Dan > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61 > *************************************

1 0

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?
by Brielle Bruns 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Back in the days when I still did NOC stuff, we'd bring in individual T1 lines through a Kentrox EZ-T3, which would hand off a channelized T3 to a 7513. With the EZ-T3, it was literally just plug and play. I believe the Atlas 800 series can be used in the same ways, but its been 10 years, so I may be mistaken... ------Original Message------ From: b nickell To: Chris Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days? Sent: Jan 10, 2011 1:16 PM The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux box, then connecting that back to a 6500. I work in that kind of topology all day long/ both in 6500 & ASR's. All is well/ On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Chris <behrnetworks(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are > doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What > platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working? > Any insights would be great! > > Thanks, > > Chris > > -- -B -- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org

1 0

How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?
by Chris 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Hello, I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working? Any insights would be great! Thanks, Chris

9 9

Re: Satellite IP
by Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:06:32 EST, Kelly Olsen said: > That would only happen with an outrageously over-subscribed provider. OK - I'll feed the troll. What's the proper amount of unused and therefor non-revenue-generating capacity the operator is supposed to reserve in order to *guarantee* that bandwidth will be available? (Hint - the provider doesn't have to be "outrageously" oversubscribed - by definition, if you're oversubscribed *at all*, it's possible for somebody to lose out. It's easy for the provider to be 98% sure that they'll be able to satisfy all the requests. But guaranteeing 100% is a whole nother story...)

3 2

Re: Satellite IP
by Jay Ashworth 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> > So what you're saying is that after a Kyoto/Chile sized quake, or a > Katrina, or a Quebec 1990 ice storm, you can *guarantee* that you can > still fill all requests for transponder space, and *still* satisfy every > single customer who wants to book 4 hours on Thursday on short notice. > > Like I said - 98% is easy. 100% is hard. Sure. But 100% is also your strawman, I believe; no? Particularly in the specific space we're presently talking about: iDirect Satellite IP service over transponders dedicated to the hub operator, the service is a bit more elastic than I believe you imagine. *Most* iDirect customers are sharing a carrier; it's a TDMA service. It's only the fairly rare ones, like I may be, who actually want a "1:1" or uncontended carrier all to ourselves. Depending on your spectrum management practices as a hub operator, if you have an entire 36MHz Ku band transponder -- or better, 2 on the same bird -- with which to play, you may be able to carve out 3MHz worth of free space, without *anyone* getting knocked off line. The 1000 other clients who are contending for that 72MHz of space merely have to contend a very small amount harder. So in actual fact, it may be possible to both meet your SLA's to the contention customers and *still* give an occasional customer 100% uncontended bandwidth for a short period of time; it's one of the reasons I propose to go that way: it *increases* my odds of getting a clean slot from at least one of 3 hub providers at any given hour. Cheers, -- jra

1 0

jetcore bigiron 4000 max ipv6 routes
by jarod smith 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Hi, I know that jetcore bigiron 4000 allow max 400000 ipv4 routes. I want to add a dual stack. Is IPv6 routes are added to the IPv4 routes or are they stored elsewhere. Regards.

1 0

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
by Joel M Snyder 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

>I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they >continually show that Cisco equipment >is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find >that so hard to believe..... Just a rough comment here. Tolly's business model is a sponsored test one, and Cisco is the dominant vendor in the marketplace. So when anyone has a new product they want to promote, they can hire Tolly's lab to show how a particular feature set is implemented and can often show how one model exceeds Cisco's performance on some or all benchmarks. While Tolly never cheats, remember that the guys who "win" the test are the ones that are helping to design the test methodology, and so they are focusing on features that they know that they can beat Cisco on. Thus, the Tolly reports are true, but may not be telling the whole story or may be focusing on a particular feature more than anything else. No one is lying to you, but you may not be given the whole picture. There's nothing wrong with having Tolly show that your product is in the same league as Cisco's, but I would not necessarily read those reports to say that Cisco is always the "loser" in any new product comparison. The real value in Tolly's reports is to give credibility to the new and up-coming products by having a mostly-independent source show that the new products are comparable with the market leaders' in some ways. Tolly is also very very important at doing spec verification: showing that a product actually DOES what the specification sheet says it does. Remember that those numbers are often made up by product managers based on poorly-done in-house tests, so having a third-party, even a paid one, say "yes, it does do that in our test lab" is WAY more information than you get from most vendors. Tolly provides a valuable service to our community but you need to look at a combination of benchmarks from Tolly as well as other very-unbiased sources (IDG and CMP magazines are pretty thorough) AND YOUR OWN TESTING to know what is best for you. On the other hand, compared to the analyst firms like Gartner who don't even have test labs and generate their reports based on phone calls, Google searches, and unverified specification sheets, Tolly is a source of infinite knowledge about products. Finally, also remember that performance is only one part of system design and deployment. Management and feature completeness are, for the operator community, often more important than whether the box can do 80 Gbps or 85 Gbps. Product selection is best done by YOU setting YOUR requirements and doing YOUR OWN testing, not by looking at point tests to see if one product version/model/device beats another in a particular small set of performance tests. Obligatory disclaimer: we don't compete directly with Tolly, but we do get paid by the magazines to do testing and there is some overlap, so we do compete indirectly. 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

Satellite IP
by Jay Ashworth 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

This is admittedly a touch end-usery, my apologies... I'm looking into satellite-based 2-way IP transport, on the scale of SCPC DVB-RCS or iDirect, as an adjunct to the already installed "traditional" one-way satellite gear installed in the Frontline DSNG truck owned by my new employer, both for MPEG streaming for broadcast, and possibly for emergency-response support, if I can sell that idea. Has anyone on NANOG any personal experience with that, from either end? Almost all of what I'll need to do will be what the satellite guys call "occasional use", ie: "I need a six hour block Thursday night, starting at 7pm", as opposed to the "monthly service with an FAP" that most people seem to sell. LBiSat is one company that understands occasional, I'm wondering if there are others (and if their IP jocks hang out here). Cheers, -- jra

3 2