Contact for Verizon Wireless data
Hello all, Does anyone have a contact within Verizon Wireless data (ie: EV-DO) that could help with some... odd (for lack of a better word) connection problems from an EV-DO modem? I think there may be some sort of packet filtering going on, but I can't tell for sure. It's kinda annoying... I'm in Los Angeles on a trip, and I have to VPN back home just to work around the filtering. Offlist would be great! Thank you! -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
RE: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>> FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default
>> criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
>I define that as "not aggressive". (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
>faster than that.)
Fair enough, but IMHO it is aggressive enough to accomplish the design goal.
>> I'd be curious to know what makes it "awful" IYO, I use it daily and
>> have few complaints ... ?
>Where's the GUI for dealing with it? It's Windows(tm) after all.
Gotchya, sure some GUI would be nice ... but "netsh inter ipv6 install" +
SLAAC (+IPv4 DHCP) isn't too bad :)
>And it brings along a few other things we didn't ask for... a Toredo(?)
tunnel
>interface, for one.
6to4, ISATAP and Teredo all come along for the ride. While they may not
have been asked for, the catch there is to make it easier for us poor users
during this "transition" period ("transition in scary quotes because that is
a terrible name ... much better : integration / co-existence).
>But yes, it is functional. It'll get you to the small assortment of ipv6
>websites around.
>> (I think the bigger / better complaint against WinXP is the lack of
>> IPv6-transport support for DNS ... and perhaps the lack of DHCPv6
>> client functionality as well)
>Yes, but those things require more than just an IPv6 stack. Service
components
>have to be changed to handle DNSv6 and DHCPv6.
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:15 -0400, TJ wrote: FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough? I define that as "not aggressive". (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP) faster than that.) I'd be curious to know what makes it "awful" IYO, I use it daily and have few complaints ... ? Where's the GUI for dealing with it? It's Windows(tm) after all. And it brings along a few other things we didn't ask for... a Toredo(?) tunnel interface, for one. But yes, it is functional. It'll get you to the small assortment of ipv6 websites around. (I think the bigger / better complaint against WinXP is the lack of IPv6-transport support for DNS ... and perhaps the lack of DHCPv6 client functionality as well) Yes, but those things require more than just an IPv6 stack. Service components have to be changed to handle DNSv6 and DHCPv6.
RE: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>>> No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses >>> is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances. >> >> You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later. > >Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP already does 3041, so I assume Vista, >2008, and 7 all do the same. In the XP case, it's not very agressive in >rotating addresses. Nope, different. No EUI64 at all - goes straight to randomized IIDs, but (cough) not to be confused with Temporary/Privacy IIDs. Randomized Link-local, randomized non-link local (Site|UniqueLocal|Global). FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough? I'd be curious to know what makes it "awful" IYO, I use it daily and have few complaints ... ? (I think the bigger / better complaint against WinXP is the lack of IPv6-transport support for DNS ... and perhaps the lack of DHCPv6 client functionality as well) /TJ
Re: Testing LFNs
On Wed, 06 May 2009 11:17:09 -0400, David Andersen wrote: Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not seeing TCP weirdness. That's the best option... spew packets. Just make sure they are as large as possible without needing fragmentation. And if your setup can support it, set the ethernet MTUs to match the serial interface (4470). Not that PPS should be an issue -- even an ancient NPE150 should be able to process switch enough packets to flood a T3.
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:09 -0400, Tony Finch wrote: No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances. You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later. Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP already does 3041, so I assume Vista, 2008, and 7 all do the same. In the XP case, it's not very agressive in rotating addresses.
Re: Alcatel as Peering and MSE(PE)
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Mauritz Lewies wrote: > All based on the Alcatel 7750 chassis. > What is the general consensus of them in these layers of the network and > can anyone point out some strong points/short falls? -- I've been on them for over a year and I like them. However, they operate very differently than other routers I have worked on. Also, there're definitely bugs here and there if you push them (7750/7450/7710) hard enough... ;-) There is a list here: https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/alcatel-nsp Not very many posts, though. scott
Re: Minnesota Sends List of Blacklisted Gambling Sites to ISPs, Telcos
Lets see... so that list of domain names and IP addresses will be out of date, what, 3 weeks ago? I don't see how something so terribly arbitary can be long lived. On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:41:55AM -0400, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > With regard to the recent discussion... > > "Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced > it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the > state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies > would be referred to the FCC. Now, the state has sent each ISP and > telco the enclosed blacklist of sites and URLs." > > http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/656645 > > -- > Jeremy L. Gaddis --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Re: Minnesota Sends List of Blacklisted Gambling Sites to ISPs, Telcos
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: With regard to the recent discussion... "Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies would be referred to the FCC. Now, the state has sent each ISP and telco the enclosed blacklist of sites and URLs." http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/656645 On the topic of gambling websites, is the minnesota state lottery website going to be blocked as well? -Dan
Re: Testing LFNs (Wrapup)
Thanks to everyone who responded on and off-list! It seems evident that I didn't have a complete understanding of the iperf switches which alter buffer sizes. Several people made a few neat points, which I'll quickly summarize: * In iperf, -P will allow one to run multiple tcp tests at once. * IOS has a built-in tester... ttcp. http://tinyurl.com/6fp75j * For suggestions on changing the kernel buffer sizes: * . http://www.29west.com/docs/THPM/ (section 8) * . http://fasterdata.es.net/ * Linux.com has a related writeup: http://www.linux.com/feature/144532 Finally, "past performance does not indicate future results" applies here. 44mbit will not necessarily go clean just because 6 did. Thanks for the tips, -mKaegler On 5/6/09 11:10 AM, "Michael Kaegler" wrote: > I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new > links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get > 6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten > me more than 6mbit through this link. Should I just shotgun 9 copies of it? > > Are there better ways to test these links? Can one verify this link with > just a pair of 7200s and linux machines on either side? Or is this something > one really needs "real" test hardware for? If 6mbit go through clean, is > there a real chance 44 will not? > > TIA, > -mKaegler > -- Michael Kaegler, TESSCO Technologies: Engineering, 410 229 1295 Your wireless success, nothing less. http://www.tessco.com/
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:57:53AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Of course, the builders used screen doors and windows for the > below-the-waterline openings, but not to worry, the bilge pump equivalent > of Moore's Law will undoubtedly save us. Speaking as a builder, I have to say the screen doors were on the plans when I got there. I gather the planners believed they would facillitate use of the ark by hybrid human-acquatic lifeforms that did not exist at the time, nor do they exist today, but were hoped to exist because mermaids and mermen are, like, totally hot. -- David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgp2gKH8u0rI2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Testing LFNs
> Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:10:45 -0400 > From: "Kaegler, Mike" > > I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new > links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get > 6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten > me more than 6mbit through this link. Should I just shotgun 9 copies of it? > > Are there better ways to test these links? Can one verify this link with > just a pair of 7200s and linux machines on either side? Or is this something > one really needs "real" test hardware for? If 6mbit go through clean, is > there a real chance 44 will not? What is "maximum window size"? For T3 at 65 ms (is that one-way or RTT?) you don't need a really big window. Sounds like the system may need tuning. See http://fasterdata.es.net/ I use iperf at multiple Gigabit speeds and it works on a tuned system. You might want to use UDP for testing. It does not care about RTT, but is less efficient to receive. At 45 Mbps, there should be no problems, though. If all else fails, run 4 or 5 iperf jobs in parallel. (Use a different port for each.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Minnesota Sends List of Blacklisted Gambling Sites to ISPs, Telcos
With regard to the recent discussion... "Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies would be referred to the FCC. Now, the state has sent each ISP and telco the enclosed blacklist of sites and URLs." http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/656645 -- Jeremy L. Gaddis
Re: Testing LFNs
set your system send and receive TCP buffers larger. You're probably being limited by that. With linux, make sure you have window auto- scaling enabled and have increased the maximum size it can grow to to at least 4MB. Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not seeing TCP weirdness. IOS includes a 'ttcp' command you can use on the router itself: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk801/tk36/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094694.shtml -Dave On May 6, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Kaegler, Mike wrote: I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get 6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten me more than 6mbit through this link. Should I just shotgun 9 copies of it? Are there better ways to test these links? Can one verify this link with just a pair of 7200s and linux machines on either side? Or is this something one really needs "real" test hardware for? If 6mbit go through clean, is there a real chance 44 will not? TIA, -mKaegler -- Michael Kaegler, TESSCO Technologies: Engineering, 410 229 1295 Your wireless success, nothing less. http://www.tessco.com/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Testing LFNs
I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get 6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten me more than 6mbit through this link. Should I just shotgun 9 copies of it? Are there better ways to test these links? Can one verify this link with just a pair of 7200s and linux machines on either side? Or is this something one really needs "real" test hardware for? If 6mbit go through clean, is there a real chance 44 will not? TIA, -mKaegler -- Michael Kaegler, TESSCO Technologies: Engineering, 410 229 1295 Your wireless success, nothing less. http://www.tessco.com/
RE: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>-Original Message- >> > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need >> > > to generate the exact same address everytime the system is started. >> > >> > No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses >> > is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances. >> >> You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later. > >The fact that MS chose to use that as the default with Vista is odd, and I >think a bad choice, but RFC4941 is not a bad thing in itself. It is an >alternative that makes good sense in some contexts - but not, I think, in most >contexts. > While I was initially inclined to agree, operating this way does allow some interesting capabilities - and I would be very interested in hearing from someone @MS as to their thinking behind this decision. /TJ
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:24 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to > > > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started. > > > > No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is > > only ever something you want in very specific circumstances. > > You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later. The fact that MS chose to use that as the default with Vista is odd, and I think a bad choice, but RFC4941 is not a bad thing in itself. It is an alternative that makes good sense in some contexts - but not, I think, in most contexts. And it's easy enough to turn off. XP uses temporary addresses too, also easy to turn off. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On May 5, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote: Look, the Ark *is* finished. It floats. It can be steered. It has space for everyone. The fact that some of the plumbing is a bit iffy is just not a major issue right now; getting everybody on board is. We have LOTS of very clever people ready to bail, many of whom are quite capable of inventing bilge pumps from scratch. Of course, the builders used screen doors and windows for the below- the-waterline openings, but not to worry, the bilge pump equivalent of Moore's Law will undoubtedly save us. Regards, -drc
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to > > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started. > > No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is > only ever something you want in very specific circumstances. You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On May 6, 2009, at 14:52, Jack Bates wrote: Better standards Sure! (You are preaching to the choir here.) While we are still on the way there, we just: 1) Shouldn't waste time reinventing decisions that are a done deal (say, EUI-64 in SAA). 2) Shouldn't use the lack of our favorite feature as an excuse to do nothing (or worse, to dig the NAT hole deeper). 3) Shouldn't practice denial, but plan for at least a /56 for every customer relationship. Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet. Gruesse, Carsten (This is my last message on this subject.)
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Carsten Bormann wrote: For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57) to the first asker, then a /58, then a /59 etc. The first asker (nested CPE) has a /57, reserves a /64 for itself (SAA), hands out a /58 to its first child (double-nested CPE), then a /59. This algorithm restricts width plus depth to 8 (64 - 56), which is probably fine for most residential applications. This makes a lot of assumptions that may not hold true and restricts home devices to treating IPv6 similar to how they treat IPv4. It's not scalable and it doesn't promote usage of multiple segments per device. The restriction is actually 6 if you make a more sane assumption of /61 per device and not /64. Standard CPE's can support multiple wireless networks and Ethernet segments. An ISP might divide up in a provided CPE, for example, wireless, data, voice, and video (which still needs unicast in addition to multicast). The netgear I configured last night for a customer supports 4 wireless networks plus ethernet. The probabilistic aspect (FCFS) may cause you cognitive dissonance, but little technical problem. (Something that could be said about many of the "I grew up on IPv4 so I don't understand IPv6" postings here.) I have little trouble with understanding IPv6, but I do have issues with the current state of it both in standards and in implementations. FCFS only works if home routers continue to work similar to the way they do. What if the ISP only gave a /60? Don't do that then! (http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/dont-do-that-then) Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet. See, that's where we disagree. Better standards is the only way back to the Internet. Solving all problems from end to end in diverse networks is the way back to the Internet. /56 is arbitrary. Making assumptions about how a network will be restricts the Internet. Jack
RE: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Some times ago, i would say 6 or 7 years, there was a BoF proposition at IETF to deal with such issue. Work areas were to propagate routing mesh configuration information and automatic assignment of subnet prefixes to links. There were quite a lot of persons interested in such issues and some drafts were proposed. The name of the BoF was zerouter. Unfortunately, the working group was not created despite some real interest. David > -Message d'origine- > De : Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] > Envoyé : mardi 5 mai 2009 21:22 > À : nanog list > Objet : Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses > > On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote: > > > What is missing, unless I've missed a protocol (which is always > > possible), is an automated way for a CPE to assign it's > networks, pass > > other networks out to downstream routers in an on-need basis. I say > > on-need, as there may be 3 routers directly behind the CPE > and each of > > those may get additional routers and so on and so forth. A > presumption > > could be made that route efficiency is > > Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as > between the ISP and the home? > > I see little reason why the main home gateway can't get a /56 > from the ISP, and then hand out /62 (or whatever) to any > routers within the home that asks for PD? > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se > > * This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
