Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 73, Issue 42

7 Feb 2014


      Ntp.nasa.gov never fails me.

Matt
On Feb 7, 2014 10:56 AM, <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:
...
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
        nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
        nanog-owner@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: Need trusted NTP Sources (Jimmy Hess)
   2. RE: SIP on FTTH systems (Frank Bulk)
   3. Re: carrier comparison (Vlade Ristevski)
   4. Re: carrier comparison (Faisal Imtiaz)
   5. Re: SIP on FTTH systems (Mark Tinka)
   6. Re: carrier comparison (Mark Tinka)
   7. Re: Need trusted NTP Sources (Roy)
   8. Re: SIP on FTTH systems (Jay Ashworth)
   9. Re: SIP on FTTH systems (Mark Tinka)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:38:06 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Need trusted NTP Sources
Message-ID:
        <
CAAAwwbU+CiTpjXjyAQE1rCT8EE+jX4XhywFPvOC+p4dw6YZPbA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
...
On (2014-02-06 21:14 -0500), Jay Ashworth wrote:
...
My usual practice is to set up two in house servers, each of which
talks to:
Two is worst possible amount of NTP servers to have. Either one fails and
your timing is wrong, because you cannot vote false ticker. And chance of
either of
two failing is higher than one specific of them.
+1 to having at least 3 NTP servers.
Because complete outage is only one kind of failure.
Don't forget   poor performance due to high latency, or
Server X  emitting  corrupted or  inaccurate data
--
-JH
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:30:08 -0600
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Jay Ashworth'" <jra@baylink.com>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: RE: SIP on FTTH systems
Message-ID: <00b401cf2408$b846cde0$28d469a0$@iname.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="UTF-8"
Rather than assign residential and business customers their own /30, to
conserve space we give those customers a /32 out of a /24.  But when one of
these static IP customers wants to send email to another, or the employee
wants to VPN into work, they can't.  MACFF is supposed to solve that (we
haven't turned it on, yet, because the vendor's implementation requires us
to do some work on our provisioning system to make it easier).
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:59 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: SIP on FTTH systems
----- Original Message -----
...
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
...
And then you need MACFF to overcome the split-horizon to that
customers in the same subnet can talk to each other. =)
In my not-at-all humble opinion, in an eyeball network, you almost *never*
want to make it easier for houses to talk to one another directly; there
isn't any "real" traffic there.  Just attack traffic.
Well, ok; slim chance of P2P, but carriers hate that anyway, right? :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink
jra@baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC
2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647
1274
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:19:15 -0500
From: Vlade Ristevski <vristevs@ramapo.edu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: carrier comparison
Message-ID: <52F4EB63.7020806@ramapo.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I'm not setting it on my router locally but sending it over to Cogent as
a community string per page 22 of their user guide.
http://cogentco.com/files/docs/customer_service/guide/global_cogent_customer...
They use it to manipulate how traffic gets back to me so that is
incoming from my routers view.
I also pad the AS  for the networks that I prefer to come back through
the other ISP..
On 2/7/2014 5:27 AM, Olivier Benghozi wrote:
...
Hi Vlade,
Well, if you are trying to balance the incoming traffic load with
local-pref attribute, I can understand your disappointment :)
Since it doesn't work at all this way: local-pref is local to an AS and
deals with outgoing traffic only.
...
B)  We have our own AS and IP space. I advertise them to both Cogent
and our other ISP. I use the local preference attribute to share the load
for incoming traffic between both ISPs. In the last 5 outages over the last
few years, this has happened twice. I'm waiting on the RFO so I can further
investigate why this happened. I think someone mentioned this in a post a
few months ago too.
--
Vlade Ristevski
Network Manager
IT Services
Ramapo College
(201)-684-6854
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:49:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net>
To: Olivier Benghozi <olivier.benghozi@wifirst.fr>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: carrier comparison
Message-ID:
        <693349979.661671.1391784549000.JavaMail.root@snappytelecom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Based on my understanding on BFD, it will not help you... BFD will detect
the direct connected port being down quicker and force the BGP session
down, (faster than the time  BGP session timers take to determine something
is broken)
This is the common issue / challenge in how to determine up-stream path
outage and then doing appropriate route engineering on an automatic basis.
Maybe a SLA monitor type scripting/configuration be useful in your case.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
...
From: "Olivier Benghozi" <olivier.benghozi@wifirst.fr>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 5:25:53 AM
Subject: Re: carrier comparison
Hi Faisal,
...
You might have to deploy some other means of (script ?) to bring your
BGP
session down from the 'broken' Service Provider.
To the best of my knowledge, BGP does not have any mechanism to
determine
broken connectivity upstream past the router you are BGP session is up
with.
Well, technically there's BFD that might do the trick. But of course it
won't
be available; it's not usually, so specially with Cogent... :)
But maybe its link was just overloaded in fact.
--
Olivier
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:20:08 +0200
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SIP on FTTH systems
Message-ID: <201402071720.12145.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Friday, February 07, 2014 03:30:08 PM Frank Bulk wrote:
...
Rather than assign residential and business customers
their own /30, to conserve space we give those customers
a /32 out of a /24.  But when one of these static IP
customers wants to send email to another, or the
employee wants to VPN into work, they can't.
This is akin to Private VLAN's where ports in a shared VLAN
are assigned numbers from the same subnet, but they can only
communicate via the BNG rather than directly at the bridge
level.
I prefer EVC Split Horizon to Private VLAN's, though.
Mark.

Matthew Crevier

tags

participants (1)