- Test - lists.nanog.org

datacenter traffic distribution
by paljak＠mit.bme.hu 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Hi, I'm wondering if there's a reliable and public survey, statistics about the distribution of datacenter (or cloud, if you wish) traffic, according to protocols or traffic types? E.g. the share of iscsi/fcoe/etc in storage, or the share of TCP/UDP, and so on. For general, Internet traffic, i've found several, for example: - Cisco Visual Networking Index, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705 /ns827/white_paper_c11-481360_ns827_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.ht ml - Arbor Networks survey, http://www.arbornetworks.com/en/arbor-networks-the-university-of-michig an-and-merit-network-to-present-two-year-study-of-global-int-2.html I'd be interested in seeing something similar for datacenter traffic, for research purposes. Thanks for you help in advance, Gergely -- Gergely Paljak

1 0

Clarification from Pica8 (was Fwd: Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack price edge)
by Christopher LILJENSTOLPE 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

I just talked to Lin Du (who I worked with when I was at Woven), who is the current CEO of Pica8. Don't know anything about the product, but this didn't seem like Lin's style. Turns out Fontaine GUILLAUME has registered pic8.org(a)gmail.com, has no relation to the company - and is trying to prove to them that he should be a reseller. Lin has told GUILLAUME to stop (not that that will do any good). Some e-mail fragments below. Chris Begin forwarded message: > From: "Lin Du" <ldu(a)pica8.com> > Date: 01 November 2010 17.11.58 +1100 > To: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <cdl(a)asgaard.org> > Subject: Re: Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack price edge > > Hi, Chris, > > Thanks for your reminding. > This guy wants to resell the Pronto products but without any partnership with us yet. > He even registered an email with my name as Pica8.org(a)gmail.com for posting. > > I sent another email to let him stop doing this anymore. I need to clarify NANOG for this. > Thanks, > > Lin > > > > From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:31 PM > To: Lin Du > Subject: Re: Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack price edge > > > NP. > > > Chris > > > On 01Nov2010, at 15.30, Lin Du wrote: > > > Chris, > > Many thanks. > > Guillaume, > Please stop using pica8 name in your posts, emails and any other public messages. We didn't grant you to do in this way. > You could be pica8 partner until you are legally qualified. > Thanks, > > Lin > Pica8 Technology Inc. > <snip>

3 2

Bandwidth into Haiti
by Marshall Eubanks 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Can anyone update me on the status of fiber bandwidth into Haiti ? Has the landing station been repaired yet after last years earthquake ? Regards Marshall Eubanks

3 2

Optical Wireless
by james edwards 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

I am looking for some vendors that make PtP optical wireless (laser) gear. I have a project where I have to link 2 buildings separated by a 5 lane road. Buildings are at least 10 stories high. Multiple reasons why RF (WiFi) or fiber under the street will not work, plus some layer 8 issues. I need 100 mbs, Ethernet is the protocol transported. PoE would be nice but not a show stopper. Anyone have experience with this kind of gear and can suggest a vendor ? Thanks, -- James H. Edwards Network Systems Administrator Judicial Information Division jedwards(a)nmcourts.gov

6 6

Management , Provisioning , Fault detection and management for ISPs?
by Gustavo Santos 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Hi, I´m looking for some books, best common pratices and stuff like that for ISPs. We have an ISP that´s having a fast growth and we´re having some problems because lack of procedures. For an example two days ago we have a broadcast storm that coused a lot of problem and was harsh to find who is causing that issue , couse one of our clients made a self install ( not authorized in one of our multipoint access point) and somehow caused a loop. we have some types of circuit delivery to our customers like point to point licensed microwave , t1/e1 , fiber optic, and point to multipoint wireless. How you large ISPs deal with that kind of problem or that´s never happen becouse all your circuits are delivered in a private vlan, qinq, serial interfaces, point to point ? Thanks! -- Gustavo Santos Analista de Redes CCNA , MTCNA , JUNCIA-ER

1 0

Topic: Inter-AS BGP Local Preference Matrix
by Rettke, Brian 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

My company is building a national backbone network, leveraging leased lines and dark fiber from Tier 1/2/3 providers. What we've found is that when we buy IP in the major markets, our traffic does not flow deterministically with AS-Path as the metric. This is because most of the major providers give their customers one local preference value, and their peers another, in an effort to ensure SLAs are met by keeping customer traffic on-net for as long as possible. There are varying values assigned, and some vendors don't offer community values to neutralize this effect. I'm wondering if anyone has dealt with this in the past, or if it would be possible to have some sort of agreement on local preference manipulation. Something similar to the below: 1. All vendors must offer at least 5 community values for local preference. This is to allow for customer-based multivendor traffic engineering. 2. All vendors must offer a local preference community value greater than their best default metric. 3. All vendors must offer a local preference community value lesser than their worst default metric. 4. All vendors should offer a range of community values both above and below local preference 100. 5. All vendors should make an effort to standardize the values/value ranges offered with other vendors. 6. All vendors should offer a local preference matrix to their customers, listing the changes made to a specific AS (e.g. another vendor) to aid the customer in making an intelligent routing decision for load balancing and traffic engineering in a multivendor BGP environment. It's obviously something that each of us would need to do individually, but I'm wondering if there is any way this could become a de facto standard, or could be a method that the community at large could enforce somehow. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services

4 3

APRICOT 2011 Call For Papers
by Jonny Martin 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) 15 - 25 February 2011, Hong Kong http://www.apricot2011.net CALL FOR PAPERS =============== The APRICOT 2011 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for APRICOT 2011. We are looking for people and proposals that would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; and/or - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; and/or - Convene and chair a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session. Please submit proposals on-line at http://www.apricot2011.net/call-for-papers/submission CONFERENCE MILESTONES --------------------- Call for Papers Opens: 29 October 2010 First Deadline for Submissions: 29 November 2010 First Draft Programme Published: 6 December 2010 Final Deadline for Submissions: 4 February 2011 Final Programme Published: 11 February 2011 Final Slides Received: 19 February 2011 PROGRAM MATERIAL ---------------- The APRICOT Programme is organised in three parts, including workshops, tutorials and the conference. The APNIC Policy SIG and Annual Members Meeting will be held during the APRICOT conference. Topics for tutorials and conference would include amongst others relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and operations - IPv4 address runout / IPv6 deployment and transition technologies - Backbone operations - ISP and Carrier services - Network security issues (NSP-SEC, DDoS Anti-Spam, Anti-Malware) - Peering / IXPs - DNS / DNSSEC - Internet policy (Security, Regulation, Content Management, Addressing, etc) - Access and Transport Technologies, including broadband deployment, Cable/DSL, wireless, WiMax, metro ethernet, fiber network, MPLS - Content & Service Delivery (Multicast, Voice, Video, "telepresence", Gaming) CFP SUBMISSION -------------- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CFP submissions otherwise the Programme Committee will be unable to review the submission. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. While the majority of speaking slots will be filled by the first submission deadline, a limited number of slots may be available up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Please submit on-line at http://www.apricot2011.net/call-for-papers/submission Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee by e-mail. We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Jonny Martin & Mark Tinka Co-Chairs, APRICOT Programme Committee program(a)apricot.net

1 0

Route hijacking
by Geoff Huston 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

My bgp monitor tells me: *> 1.2.3.0/24 203.119.76.3 0 4608 1221 4637 3561 1299 12025 ? *> 5.4.3.0/24 202.12.28.1 0 4777 2516 1239 1299 12025 ? These are _not_ authorized announcements, so could AS3561 Savvis AS1299 Telia AS1239 Sprintlink kindly DROP these unauthorized route advertisements (and clean up their route acceptance processes so that they stop announcing unauthorized noise to the rest of the Internet). And could the folk who run AS12025 IO-DATA-CENTERS - IO Data Centers kindly stop route hijacking? thanks, Geoff

1 0

IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
by Jack Bates 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

So, the best that I can tell (still not through debating with RIR), the IPv6 routing table will see lots of bloat. Here's my reasoning so far: 1) RIR (ARIN in this case, don't know other RIR interpretations) only does initial assignments to barely cover the minimum. If you need more due to routing, you'll need to provide every pop, counts per pop, etc, to show how v6 will require more than just the minimums (full routing plan and customer counts to justify routing plan). HD-Ratio has NO bearing on initial allocation, and while policy dictates that it doesn't matter how an ISP assigns to customer so long as HD-Ratio is met, that is not the case when providing justification for the initial allocation. 2) Subsequent requests only double in size according to policy (so just keep going back over and over since HD is met immediately due to the minimalist initial assignment?) So I conclude that since I get a bare minimum, I can only assign a bare minimum. Since everything is quickly maxed out, I must request more (but only double), which in turn I can assign, but my customer assignments (Telcos/ISPs in this case) will be non-contiguous due to the limited available space I have to hand out. This will lead to IGP bloat, and in cases of multi-homed customers whom I provide address space for, BGP bloat. I'm small, so my bloat factor is small, but I can quickly see this developing exactly as my v4 network did (if it was years ago when I first got my v4 allocation, growing to today, for each allocation I got for v4, I'd expect similar out of v6). Sure, the end user gets loads of space with those nice /48's, but the space within ISPs and their ISP customers is force limited by initial allocations which will create fragmentation of address space. This is brought about due to the dual standard of initial vs subsequent allocations (just enough to cover existing vs HD Ratio). As an example, Using HD-Ratios as an initial assignment metric can warrant a /27, whereas the minimalist approach may only warrant a heavily utilized /30. 3 bits doesn't seem like much, but it's a huge difference in growth room. Bare minimums, as provided by me, only included the /24 IPv4 DHCP pools converted with a raw conversion as /32 IPv4 = /48 IPv6 network Am I missing something, or is this minimalist approach going to cause issues in BGP the same as v4 did? Jack

24 47

Re: Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack priceedge (was Re: Pica8 - Open Source Cloud Switch)
by Brielle Bruns 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

Welcome to the AHBL, pica8. Hope you enjoy your stay, and don't expect us to be recommending your products to our data center clients. Nothing pisses me off more then a company claiming to support open source software that spams. ------Original Message------ From: Lin Pica8 To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack priceedge (was Re: Pica8 - Open Source Cloud Switch) Sent: Oct 30, 2010 12:08 PM plonk 2010/10/30 Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>: >> Hello, >> >> For your information : >> >> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/102810-pica8-opensource-switching.htm… > > your spam is getting annoying > > randy > -- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org

1 0