nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
From: oliver rothschild <orothschild () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:56 -0500
This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in advance. On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, <nanog-request () nanog org> wrote:
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog () 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 () 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: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) 2. RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship (O'Reirdan, Michael) 3. Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (John Curran) 4. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Leigh Porter) 5. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) 6. Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived (bmanning () vacation karoshi com) 7. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Justin M. Streiner) 8. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Mark Tinka) 9. Multiple ISP Load Balancing (Holmes,David A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0530 From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com> To: Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship Message-ID: <CAArzuouqU2SivNgcE-3ipe-AwSq7v7N1H4wWqOxzxsP8hxYCOA () mail gmail com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with something, other operators could sign on to that as well. The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. --srs On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> wrote:?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill ?Authors: ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com) ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:36:59 +0000 From: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan () Cable Comcast com> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org> Subject: RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship Message-ID: <B13238AB0CB1514B9509DEEE5F98F2E00DE39363 () PACDCEXMB13 cable comcast com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf Mike ________________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists () gmail com] Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 To: Hal Murray Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with something, other operators could sign on to that as well. The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. --srs On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> wrote:Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill Authors: Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. David Dagon, Georgia Tech Dan Kaminsky, DKH Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com) ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:56 +0000 From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) Message-ID: <131B2DA4-7C99-4DB8-924A-EBCB27EF9BF0 () arin net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context).I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer facilitators to the ARIN web site: <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:06 +0000 From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com> To: John Curran <jcurran () arin net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) Message-ID: <8C3137B6-7690-4CF5-85B2-594E450CDB7B () ukbroadband com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm -- Leigh On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, "John Curran" <jcurran () arin net> wrote:On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context).I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer facilitators to the ARIN web site: <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:01:06 +0530 From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com> To: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan () cable comcast com> Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship Message-ID: <CAArzuotafMx+1mRFT9dLqYyRvhyFBsPg=Cir48-Ez=QZxLLEPw () mail gmail com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Wonderful. I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider endorsing the MAAWG comments. thanks suresh On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael <Michael_OReirdan () cable comcast com> wrote:MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf Mike ________________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists () gmail com] Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 To: Hal Murray Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with something, other operators could sign on to that as well. The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. --srs On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> wrote:?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill ?Authors: ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com) ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000 From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com To: Chaim Rieger <chaim.rieger () gmail com> Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived Message-ID: <20111214141052.GA7933 () vacation karoshi com.> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote:What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ?babalyonian fertility icons? (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your home, yes?) /bill ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:16:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org> To: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112140906460.30735 () whammy cluebyfour org> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htmSome of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out wrong. I would not trust the judgment and opinions of someone who even admitted in one of their blog posts that they had "no hands-on Service Provider IPv6 experience." While I can understand why IPv4 address brokers would take a decidedly anti-IPv6 stance (deploying IPv6 cuts into their potential business), that doesn't make it any less underhanded. jms ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:18:41 +0800 From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net> To: nanog () nanog org Cc: John Curran <jcurran () arin net> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) Message-ID: <201112142218.42329.mtinka () globaltransit net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter wrote:I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htmI'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing stories that their link titles take out of context. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111214/2168d8c3/attachment-0001.bin> ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:04 -0800 From: "Holmes,David A" <dholmes () mwdh2o com> To: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Multiple ISP Load Balancing Message-ID: <922ACC42D498884AA02B3565688AF9953402D4EF13 () USEXMBS01 mwd.h2o> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"From time to time some have posted questions asking if BGP load balancers such as the old Routescience Pathcontrol device are still around, and if not what have others found to replace that function. I have used the Routescience device with much success 10 years ago when it first came on the market, but since then a full BGP feed has become much larger, Routescience has been bought by Avaya, then discontinued, and other competitors such as Sockeye, Netvmg have been acquired by other companies.Doing some research on how load balancing can be accomplished in 2011, I have come across Cisco's performance routing feature, and features from load balancing companies such as F5's Link Controller. I have always found BGP to be easy to work with, and an elegant, simple solution to load balancing using a route-reflector configuration in which one BGP client (Routescience Pathcontrol in my background) learns the best route to destination networks, and then announces that best route to BGP border routers using common and widely understood BGP concepts such as communities and local pref, and found this to lead to a deterministic Internet routing architecture. This required a knowledge only of IETF standards (common BGP concepts and configurations), required no specialized scripting, or any other knowledge lying outside IETF boundaries, and it seemed reasonable to expect that network engineers should eagerly and enthusiastically want to master this technology, just as any other technology must be mastered to run high availability networks. So I am wondering if anyone has experience with implementing load balancing across multiple ISP links in 2011, and if there have been any comparisons between IETF standards-based methods using BGP, and other proprietary methods which may use a particular vendor's approach to solving the same problem, but involves some complexity with more variables to be plugged in to the architecture. David ________________________________ This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments or embedded links, from your system. End of NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56 *************************************
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56 oliver rothschild (Dec 14)