date:20110228


On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Tony Finch wrote:

 It ought to be possible to look at SMB or mDNS messages to get more 
 information about what the host claims to be...


We can't trust those, they're easily manipulated and/or 
situationally-irrelevant.  

Or not present at all, if the endpoint customer is security-conscious.

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Steven Bellovin


On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:

 I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect
 that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do
 things the way they always do, rather than making small changes
 and ending up with equivalent effort.
 
 add noc and doc costs of all changes, please
 
Sure.  How do they compare to the total cost of the IPv6 conversion
excluding SLAAC?  (Btw, for the folks who said that enterprises may
not want privacy-enhanced addresses -- that isn't clear to me.  While
they may want it turned off internally, or even when roaming internally,
I suspect that many companies would really want to avoid having their
employees tracked when they're traveling.  Imagine -- you know the CEO's
laptop's MAC address from looking at Received: lines in headers.  (Some
CEOs do send email to random outsiders -- think of the Steve Jobs-grams
that some people have gotten.)  You then see the same MAC address with
a prefix belonging to some potential merger or joint venture target.  You
may turn on DHCPv6 to avoid that, but his/her home ISP or takeover target
may not.)


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Jim Gettys


On 02/28/2011 08:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:


On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:


I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect
that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do
things the way they always do, rather than making small changes
and ending up with equivalent effort.


add noc and doc costs of all changes, please


Sure.  How do they compare to the total cost of the IPv6 conversion
excluding SLAAC?  (Btw, for the folks who said that enterprises may
not want privacy-enhanced addresses -- that isn't clear to me.  While
they may want it turned off internally, or even when roaming internally,
I suspect that many companies would really want to avoid having their
employees tracked when they're traveling.  Imagine -- you know the CEO's
laptop's MAC address from looking at Received: lines in headers.  (Some
CEOs do send email to random outsiders -- think of the Steve Jobs-grams
that some people have gotten.)  You then see the same MAC address with
a prefix belonging to some potential merger or joint venture target.  You
may turn on DHCPv6 to avoid that, but his/her home ISP or takeover target
may not.)




One of the items we worried about at OLPC (not that I remember if we 
ended up doing anything about it), is that in some countries, kidnapping 
is a very serious problem.


Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the 
time is a potentially a serious security/safety issue.  It must be 
*possible* to be anonymous, even if some environments by policy won't 
provide service if you choose to be anonymous.

- Jim

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:

 Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is 
 a potentially a serious security/safety issue. 


We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically 
change them, do we not?

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Ray Soucy

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
 Oh... did not know about the heavy baggage...

 No, when I first played with IPv6 only network, I found out that RD was 
 silly, it gives an IP adddress but no DNS, and you have to rely on IPv4 to do 
 that. silly, so my understanding is then people saw the mistake, and added 
 some DNS resolution... Because the only option was to get DHCPv6 to get the 
 DNS, but then why create RD in the first place?

 So I found this whole saga, to put it mildly stupid, like when people were 
 talking about migrating to IPv6 but the root servers did not even have an 
 IPv6 address: silly!

 So I really don't care between RD and DHCPv6, what I care, is that they 
 should be able to do their job correctly on their own.

Really, if you look back at the archives of this list these arguments
are starting to get silly as you put it.

It seems that every few months, as people discover that IPv6 isn't
going away and they should brush up on it, people go through this
process of debating the way IPv6 was designed as if it were 1998, and
ultimately make posts like this.

IPv6 is simple, elegant, and flexible.

DHCPv6 was always a core component of IPv6 (just like ICMPv6 is a core
components of IPv6, or should we throw ping and traceroute into RA as
well...)

This is why we have flags in RA to signal how addressing is done on a
network for a prefix:

A - Autonomous Flag, allows hosts to perform stateless addressing for a prefix.
O - Other Flag, signals that additional configuration information is
available (such as DNS) and DHCPv6 should be used.
M - Managed Flag, signals that hosts should request a stateful address
using DHCPv6.

The real point, initially at least, for stateless addressing was to
make the Link-Local scope work.  It's brilliantly elegant.  It allows
all IPv6 configuration to be made over IPv6 (and thus use sane
constructs like multicast to do it).

Router Advertisements shift gateway and prefix configuration to the
routers (which are the devices that actually know if they're available
or not) rather than a DHCP server.  If you set things up right, making
a change to your RA will be seen by hosts almost instantly, and you
won't need to go through the headache of waiting for DHCP leases to
expire before hosts see that a network isn't available and let go of
that route.

One thing to keep in mind is that even though DHCPv6 and DHCP have a
similar name, they're still pretty different.  DHCPv6 was designed as
part of IPv6.  DHCP was an afterthought.  Like many things in IPv6,
they have been re-designed and included as a core component of IPv6.
Don't go making assumptions that DHCPv6 was added to IPv6 to turn
IPv6 into IPv4, and don't try to modify DHCPv6 to make that the case,
please.  What is needed now is protocol stability, and implementation
of the current standards, not the re-writing of them mid-deployment.

RDNSS is what I would consider silly.  IPv6 already allows for an
environment in which stateless is used and DHCPv6 only provides DNS
(and other) information.  This is because none of the flags are
exclusive.  In fact, you can use both Stateless and DHCPv6 on the same
network, and host will get two IPv6 addresses (for example to
configure servers with pre-determined addresses).  This was the design
intent.

If you don't use DHCPv6 to assign addresses and are using SLAAC, you
can still use DHCPv6 to provide other information only, or DHCPv6
Light, and this is already supported in most routing platforms to be
configured right on the router.

Implementation-wise, DHCPv6 Light and RDNSS have almost no difference.
 What RDNSS manages to do is embed DNS into RA (where it doesn't
belong IMHO) seemingly for the sake of not calling it DHCPv6.

Keeping DNS information out of RA is a Good Thing (which makes RDNSS a
Bad Thing).  Why? Because DNS might not always be the method we use
for mapping names to addresses; it might see a rewrite like IP itself
has seen, and there will likely be a desire to provide hosts with more
configuration information.  Looking DNS information into RA is a
slippery slope.  What's next, another option to RA for next-server
information?

DHCPv6 is separate from RA because they know that the needs for host
configuration are more likely to change over time than IPv6 itself,
and keeping them separate keeps IPv6 stable.

The question isn't Stateless or DHCPv6.  The question is Why are
people implementing IPv6 without a core component?  That's pretty
much like saying you support IPv6 but not including ICMPv6 or MLD.

This isn't a war of Stateless vs. DHCPv6.  They're both the same
thing.  They're both core components of IPv6, and they both provide
specific, non-conflicting, functionality.  The argument of Having to
implement DHCPv6 is more work is silly for these same reasons.
Well I'm not going to support address scope because that's more
work.

Thankfully, with Apple seemingly supporting DHCPv6, that means
Windows, Linux,

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:

 IPv6 is simple, elegant, and flexible.


This is the first time I've ever seen 'IPv6' in the same sentence with 
'simple', 'elegant', or 'flexible', unless preceded by 'not'.

;

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Jim Gettys


On 02/28/2011 08:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:


On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:


Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is a 
potentially a serious security/safety issue.



We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically 
change them, do we not?



And we certainly discussed randomising MAC addresses, for exactly the 
reasons stated.

- Jim

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 08:44, Dobbins, Roland wrote:

 On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
 
 Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is 
 a potentially a serious security/safety issue. 
 
 We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically 
 change them, do we not?

Only between hosts that are in the same layer-2 broadcast domain.

By embedding the MAC into the layer-3 address, the concern is that the 
information becomes accessible Internet-wide.


Joe

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

 By embedding the MAC into the layer-3 address, the concern is that the 
 information becomes accessible Internet-wide.

Given the the toxicity of hotel networks alone, my guess is that it already is 
pretty much available Internet-wide, at least to those who stand to illicitly 
profit by it the most.

;

And let's not get started on IMEIs, ESNs, and MEIDs, heh.

SMTP headers and various IM client sessions are also quite revealing, for that 
matter - and in near- or real-time, in many cases.

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Jeff Kell

On 2/28/2011 8:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
 Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is 
 a potentially a serious security/safety issue. 
 We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically 
 change them, do we not?

Not globally, no.

Jeff

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Nick Hilliard


On 28/02/2011 13:52, Ray Soucy wrote:

The real point, initially at least, for stateless addressing was to
make the Link-Local scope work.  It's brilliantly elegant.  It allows
all IPv6 configuration to be made over IPv6 (and thus use sane
constructs like multicast to do it).


Wonderful, brilliant design.


Router Advertisements shift gateway and prefix configuration to the
routers (which are the devices that actually know if they're available
or not) rather than a DHCP server.  If you set things up right, making
a change to your RA will be seen by hosts almost instantly, and you
won't need to go through the headache of waiting for DHCP leases to
expire before hosts see that a network isn't available and let go of
that route.


Yes, it's all brilliant, wonderful.  Elegant too, this idea of having two 
sets of protocols, because two is always better than one.  It provides balance.


I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / 
explanations about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp and 
ipv4 packets from the conference network and depends entirely on ipv6 for 
connectivity for the entire conference.


But we couldn't do that??!?!, I hear you say.

I understand completely.

Nick

Re: Sunday Funnies: Using a smart phone as a diagnostic tool

- Original Message -
 From: Joshua William Klubi joshua.kl...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
  Do you have a smartphone? Blackberry? iPhone? Android?
 
 Try a Nokia N900 Maemo device,

I've had an n800 for about 3 years now.  Original battery, even, though
it is time for a replacement.  I passed on the n810 for a bunch of
reasons, though.  Didn't like the carrier selection for the n900.

  Do you use it as a technical tool in your work, either for accessing
  devices or testing connectivity -- or something else?
 
 yes if ur a real IT person and your very well versed in terms
 of knowledge and you use
 gadgets then you should know it is a swiss knife among all mobile
 devices.

I'll use here a phrase that's current at the TV network where I work,
used when someone who's getting paid to make the show suddenly discovers
something everyone else in the room already knew:

Welcome to the show.

 you can easily compare the difference, with N900 you don't need all
 those APP markets
 you have all the apps develop for Linux at your disposal, just use
 apt-get and then ur done.

Though as with all Application Managers, they make backout hell; I use
FBreader on my n800 as probably my primary app... and the newest build
has a couple of *really* nasty bugs.  And it's a pain in the *ass* to 
go back to an older build, without getting married to every detail of
how the appmgr works.

Or going off the reservation, after which you'll be prompted to 'upgrade'
forever...

  HTC thunderbolt is not a bad looking phone. one most important thing
  about
 all the mobile
 phone devices out there it is only Nokia that support full networking
 stack
 of IPV6 on it
 no hacking needed to get it running.

Note that the Thunderbolt will be an LTE700 phone, and therefore (or
so I'm told) natively IPv6 on the air-interface; this will likely make
that less of a problem than on older phones.

Cheers,
-- jra

RE: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Brian Johnson

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Kell [mailto:jeff-k...@utc.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:49 AM
To: Dobbins, Roland
Cc: nanog group
Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

On 2/28/2011 8:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
 Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time
is a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
 We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to
periodically change them, do we not?

Not globally, no.

Jeff

Can someone explain what exactly the security threat is?

If you are going to say that knowing the MAC address of the end device allows 
the bad guy to know what type of equipment you have and as such to attempt 
known compromises for said equipment, then please just don't reply. :)

- Brian

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:

 I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / explanations 
 about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp and ipv4 packets 
 from the conference network and depends entirely on ipv6 for connectivity for 
 the entire conference.

It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose solution to 
anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why people keep fixating on 
that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working towards is a consistent, 
reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no point worrying about v6-only 
operations if we can't get dual-stack working reliably.

[I also find the knee-jerk it's different from IPv4, the IETF is stupid memes 
to be tiring. Identifying questionable design decisions with hindsight is 
hardly the exclusive domain of IPv6; there are tremendously more crufty 
workarounds in IPv4, and far more available hindsight. Complaining about IPv6 
because it's different from IPv4 doesn't get us anywhere.]


Joe

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 09:53, Brian Johnson wrote:

 Can someone explain what exactly the security threat is?

The threat model relates to the ability for a third party to be able to 
identify what subnets a single device has moved between, which is possible with 
MAC-embedded IPv6 addresses but not possible with addresses without embedded 
local identifiers. It's analogous to someone tracking credit card use and being 
able to infer from the vendor crumbs where an individual has been.

I don't think this has ever been cited as a global, general threat that must be 
eliminated (just as people are generally happy to use the same credit card as 
they move around the planet and don't generally stress about the implications). 
However, I think it's reasonable that it's a concern for some. There is no 
global, fixed value of acceptable when it comes to privacy.


Joe

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

  There's no point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get 
 dual-stack working reliably.

I think this is the most insightful, cogent, and pertinent comment made 
regarding IPv6 in just about any medium at any time.

[Yes, I know that dual-stack brings its own additional complexities to the 
table, but there really isn't any other choice, is there?]

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Nick Hilliard

On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:

I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack
working reliably.

That's dual-stack as in
dual-stack-except-one-of-the-stacks-really-doesn't-work-properly-so-we'll-fudge-around-it?
:-)

Look, my original point is that RA is a brilliant solution for a problem
which never really existed. Now, can we all just ignore RA and work
towards DHCPv6 because that's what's actually needed in the real world?

[I also find the knee-jerk it's different from IPv4, the IETF is
stupid memes to be tiring. Identifying questionable design decisions
with hindsight is hardly the exclusive domain of IPv6; there are
tremendously more crufty workarounds in IPv4, and far more available
hindsight. Complaining about IPv6 because it's different from IPv4
doesn't get us anywhere.]

Sure. We had lots of hindsight with ipv4, which should have indicated to
people that we had just the sort of functionality that we needed from dhcp,
even if dhcpv4 was badly implemented.

But instead of sorting out DHCPv6 and making it do what we needed, we ended
up with two protocols which ought to complement each other, but don't
quite, and also can't quite operate independently because of historical
turf wars in the IETF (now ended, thankfully).

Complaining about knee-jerk reactions would have been fine in the early
days, but it is 14 years, 3 weeks, 0 days, 2 hours and 8 minutes since I
sent my first ipv6 ping, and we still haven't got there for basic ipv6 LAN
connectivity.

We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any arbitrary
ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up ipv6.google.com.

Is that too high a standard to work towards? :-)

Nick

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:

 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
 
 Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is 
 a potentially a serious security/safety issue. 
 
 
 We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically 
 change them, do we not?
 
MAC addresses don't generally leave the local broadcast domain.

Having a MAC address as a permanent identifier is a very different problem from 
having that
MAC address go into a layer 3 protocol field.

Owen

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:

 On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
 I'm not sure why people keep
 fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
 towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
 point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack
 working reliably.
 
 That's dual-stack as in 
 dual-stack-except-one-of-the-stacks-really-doesn't-work-properly-so-we'll-fudge-around-it?
  :-)

You're describing where we are. I'm talking about where I think we should be 
planning to arrive.

 Look, my original point is that RA is a brilliant solution for a problem 
 which never really existed.  Now, can we all just ignore RA and work towards 
 DHCPv6 because that's what's actually needed in the real world?

RA and DHCPv6 work together. It's different from DHCP in IPv4. Run with it. 
Sending people back to the drawing board at this late stage in the game (a) 
isn't going to happen and (b) isn't going to help anybody.

 We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any arbitrary 
 ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up ipv6.google.com.
 
 Is that too high a standard to work towards? :-)

As I thought I mentioned, yes. Forget v6-only right now. Dual-stack is an 
operationally-harder problem, and it's a necessary prerequisite.


Joe

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

 Having a MAC address as a permanent identifier is a very different problem 
 from having that MAC address go into a layer 3 protocol field.


Given the plethora of identifiable information already frothing around in our 
data wakes, I'm unsure this is as big a deal as it might initially seem, 
especially given the existence of VPNs and proxy servers.

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

 We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any arbitrary 
 ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up ipv6.google.com.

-

One day a master from another monastery came upon Abley as he was watching a 
young child sounding out letters from a spelling primer.

I do not believe we should waste time trying to get IPv6 working in a 
dual-stack environment, said the sojourner, we should instead discuss what is 
wrong with IPv6, and how to fix it through the standards process and detailed 
vendor implementation guidelines.

Abley then seized the book from the child and flung it into a nearby rubbish 
bin, saying, I wish this child to learn how to write sonnets in iambic 
pentameter.

At that moment, the master was enlightened.

-

;

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

 Really, if you look back at the archives of this list these arguments
 are starting to get silly as you put it.
 
Yes and no...

 It seems that every few months, as people discover that IPv6 isn't
 going away and they should brush up on it, people go through this
 process of debating the way IPv6 was designed as if it were 1998, and
 ultimately make posts like this.
 
This may apply to some fraction of posters, but, I think many of the
posters in this thread are actually fairly knowledgeable on IPv6.

 IPv6 is simple, elegant, and flexible.
 
Parts of it are. Other parts are rigid, inflexible, and represent design
decisions only theorists could love.

 DHCPv6 was always a core component of IPv6 (just like ICMPv6 is a core
 components of IPv6, or should we throw ping and traceroute into RA as
 well...)
 
The intertwining of RA/DHCPv6 as it currently stands in IPv6 is an example
of a design decision only theorists could love.

In the real world, you have organizations where the people that manage
hosts and host policy are not the people that run routers. In such
environments, creating this kind of cross-organizational dependency
that requires a constant coordination of even trivial changes on either
side is far from optimal.

 This is why we have flags in RA to signal how addressing is done on a
 network for a prefix:
 
 A - Autonomous Flag, allows hosts to perform stateless addressing for a 
 prefix.
 O - Other Flag, signals that additional configuration information is
 available (such as DNS) and DHCPv6 should be used.
 M - Managed Flag, signals that hosts should request a stateful address
 using DHCPv6.
 
That's all well and good, but, when you consider the real world implications,
it starts to break down in most organizations...

Now, the people that run the routers have full control over the selection
of addressing schemes for the network. The people who set host policy
have no control short of statically configuring the hosts or getting buy-in
from the people that run the routers for their particular preference
in address selection methods.

Yes, in a theoretical world, everyone gets along and cooperates easily
and stuff just works out with whatever decision is agreed upon. In the
real world, this becomes a constant source of tension between the
two groups and increases workload on both sides of the equation
unnecessarily.

 The real point, initially at least, for stateless addressing was to
 make the Link-Local scope work.  It's brilliantly elegant.  It allows
 all IPv6 configuration to be made over IPv6 (and thus use sane
 constructs like multicast to do it).
 
All well and good, but...

 Router Advertisements shift gateway and prefix configuration to the
 routers (which are the devices that actually know if they're available
 or not) rather than a DHCP server.  If you set things up right, making
 a change to your RA will be seen by hosts almost instantly, and you
 won't need to go through the headache of waiting for DHCP leases to
 expire before hosts see that a network isn't available and let go of
 that route.
 
Which also means:
1.  Multiple subnets on the same media that are intended for
different hosts and have different routers are no longer
feasible. (Yes, you can argue they're less than desirable
in IPv4 and I would agree, but, they exist in the real world
for a variety of layer 8-10 reasons and re-engineering an
organization to make it fit into IPv6 is non-trivial).

2.  RA has the problem of treating all routers claiming to
have the same priority are of equal value to all hosts.
Routers are considered fully interchangeable units
and it is assumed that all routers are a viable path
to everything. DHCPv4 actually provides facilities
for dealing with more complex topologies where
different destinations may be in different directions
from different hosts. It also allows for providing
different default gateways to different hosts based on
policy decisions.

Yes, in the most basic cases, RA can be superior to getting routing
information from DHCP. However, in the real world, there are many
cases where it simply breaks things and is a step backwards from
capabilities in use in IPv4.

 One thing to keep in mind is that even though DHCPv6 and DHCP have a
 similar name, they're still pretty different.  DHCPv6 was designed as
 part of IPv6.  DHCP was an afterthought.  Like many things in IPv6,
 they have been re-designed and included as a core component of IPv6.
 Don't go making assumptions that DHCPv6 was added to IPv6 to turn
 IPv6 into IPv4, and don't try to modify DHCPv6 to make that the case,
 please.  What is needed now is protocol stability, and implementation
 of the current standards, not the re-writing of them mid-deployment.
 
While you have

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Nick Hilliard


On 28/02/2011 15:45, Dobbins, Roland wrote:

At that moment, the master was enlightened.


One day a master from another monastery came upon Dobbins and Abley as they 
were watching a 14 year-old cripple learning how to fly.


I do not believe we should waste time teaching children to walk, said 
Abley.  Indeed not, agreed Dobbins, a waste of time and a distraction 
from the long term goal of flight.  We have kept the child restrained from 
birth so that he can concentrate on the loftier ideal.


The sojourner then seized the book from the child, flung it at Abley and 
Dobbins, called social services to lodge a complaint about child neglect, 
then stalked off in disgust, rolling his eyes and muttering under his 
breath about the rank stupidity of humanity.


At that moment, Dobbins and Abley were enlightened.

Nick

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

 
 On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
 
 I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / explanations 
 about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp and ipv4 packets 
 from the conference network and depends entirely on ipv6 for connectivity 
 for the entire conference.
 
 It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose solution to 
 anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why people keep fixating on 
 that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working towards is a 
 consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no point worrying about 
 v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack working reliably.
 
I disagree.

Those of us who know what it costs to do double maintenance on a continuing 
basis would like to
drive a stake through the heart of IPv4 sooner rather than later. IPv6-only 
viability is the real goal.
This is, in the long run, a transition from v4 to v6. Dual-stack is an interim 
stop-gap, not an end
solution.

Dual stack is mostly working reliably at this point. There are some 
improvements needed in IPv6
for enterprises and they are needed for both dual stack and for IPv6 only, so, 
I'm not sure why
that becomes particularly relevant to this thread.

However, we should always keep our eye on the prize as it were. That's the 
eventuality of
realizing huge cost savings (lower CAM utilization, better scaling, etc.) of a 
v6-only
world.

 [I also find the knee-jerk it's different from IPv4, the IETF is stupid 
 memes to be tiring. Identifying questionable design decisions with hindsight 
 is hardly the exclusive domain of IPv6; there are tremendously more crufty 
 workarounds in IPv4, and far more available hindsight. Complaining about IPv6 
 because it's different from IPv4 doesn't get us anywhere.]
 
How about attempting to point out the areas where IPv6 could be improved, 
which, is how
I regard most of this thread.

Owen

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Ray Soucy

   1.  Multiple subnets on the same media that are intended for
   different hosts and have different routers are no longer
   feasible. (Yes, you can argue they're less than desirable
   in IPv4 and I would agree, but, they exist in the real world
   for a variety of layer 8-10 reasons and re-engineering an
   organization to make it fit into IPv6 is non-trivial).

Owen, you seem to be fixated around the idea that you can't have
multiple prefixes on the same subnet.

Set the routers to disable SLAAC,

Setup DHCPv6 to only respond with address information for the specific
hosts you want to control for each prefix (this DHCPv6 server can be
run by someone different than the person configuring routers).

Hosts will use the gateway for the prefix they've been assigned.

I'm not sure why you insist otherwise.

I've actually been working on such a setup for web-based host
registration and using a shadow ULA prefix until registered, then
they get a real DHCPv6 response.

And yes, you're correct, it would be much better to keep different
hosts on different VLANs, this is just a possible solution to your
problem statement.

I wouldn't be opposed to DHCPv6 options to deliver routes to hosts
(e.g. prefix, prefix-length, gateway, and metric) not just default
route information.  But I'm not sure that anything is really lost in
terms of functionality under the current implementation, you just have
to approach it in a slightly different way.

RDNSS encourages people not to implement functional DHCPv6 clients, so
I'm not sure how you find it to be a good thing for the problem
statement above.

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
 Really, if you look back at the archives of this list these arguments
 are starting to get silly as you put it.

 Yes and no...

 It seems that every few months, as people discover that IPv6 isn't
 going away and they should brush up on it, people go through this
 process of debating the way IPv6 was designed as if it were 1998, and
 ultimately make posts like this.

 This may apply to some fraction of posters, but, I think many of the
 posters in this thread are actually fairly knowledgeable on IPv6.

 IPv6 is simple, elegant, and flexible.

 Parts of it are. Other parts are rigid, inflexible, and represent design
 decisions only theorists could love.

 DHCPv6 was always a core component of IPv6 (just like ICMPv6 is a core
 components of IPv6, or should we throw ping and traceroute into RA as
 well...)

 The intertwining of RA/DHCPv6 as it currently stands in IPv6 is an example
 of a design decision only theorists could love.

 In the real world, you have organizations where the people that manage
 hosts and host policy are not the people that run routers. In such
 environments, creating this kind of cross-organizational dependency
 that requires a constant coordination of even trivial changes on either
 side is far from optimal.

 This is why we have flags in RA to signal how addressing is done on a
 network for a prefix:

 A - Autonomous Flag, allows hosts to perform stateless addressing for a 
 prefix.
 O - Other Flag, signals that additional configuration information is
 available (such as DNS) and DHCPv6 should be used.
 M - Managed Flag, signals that hosts should request a stateful address
 using DHCPv6.

 That's all well and good, but, when you consider the real world implications,
 it starts to break down in most organizations...

 Now, the people that run the routers have full control over the selection
 of addressing schemes for the network. The people who set host policy
 have no control short of statically configuring the hosts or getting buy-in
 from the people that run the routers for their particular preference
 in address selection methods.

 Yes, in a theoretical world, everyone gets along and cooperates easily
 and stuff just works out with whatever decision is agreed upon. In the
 real world, this becomes a constant source of tension between the
 two groups and increases workload on both sides of the equation
 unnecessarily.

 The real point, initially at least, for stateless addressing was to
 make the Link-Local scope work.  It's brilliantly elegant.  It allows
 all IPv6 configuration to be made over IPv6 (and thus use sane
 constructs like multicast to do it).

 All well and good, but...

 Router Advertisements shift gateway and prefix configuration to the
 routers (which are the devices that actually know if they're available
 or not) rather than a DHCP server.  If you set things up right, making
 a change to your RA will be seen by hosts almost instantly, and you
 won't need to go through the headache of waiting for DHCP leases to
 expire before hosts see that a network isn't available and let go of
 that route.

 Which also means:
        1.      Multiple subnets on the same media that are intended for
                different hosts and have different routers are no

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

  IPv6-only viability is the real goal.  This is, in the long run, a 
 transition from v4 to v6. Dual-stack is an interim stop-gap, not an end
 solution.

I think most everyone agrees with this.  However, getting experience with 
dual-stack is better than no experience with IPv6 at all.

This doesn't mean that dual-stack should be rolled out everywhere; just that 
doing so may in fact make sense in some situations, and will often result in 
folks getting some operational experience with IPv6 vs. none at all until some 
time in the distant future.

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

 At that moment, Dobbins and Abley were enlightened.

hahaha

;

Hey, I think dual-stack is pretty ugly - just that it's less ugly than getting 
no operational experience with IPv6 at all on production networks until some 
point in the indeterminate future.

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:

On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack
working reliably.

That's dual-stack as in
dual-stack-except-one-of-the-stacks-really-doesn't-work-properly-so-we'll-fudge-around-it?
:-)

You're describing where we are. I'm talking about where I think we should be
planning to arrive.

Your description sounds more like where we should be making a plane change.
The eventual destination is IPv6-only. Dual-stack is a temporary stopover along
the way.
However, you are partially right in that we should be focusing on arriving at
the first
stop-over until we arrive there. Then we can start navigating from there to the
final
destination.

Look, my original point is that RA is a brilliant solution for a problem
which never really existed. Now, can we all just ignore RA and work towards
DHCPv6 because that's what's actually needed in the real world?

RA and DHCPv6 work together. It's different from DHCP in IPv4. Run with it.
Sending people back to the drawing board at this late stage in the game (a)
isn't going to happen and (b) isn't going to help anybody.

And the model breaks badly at layers 8-10 in most enterprises and many other
organizations.

We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any arbitrary
ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up ipv6.google.com.

Is that too high a standard to work towards? :-)

As I thought I mentioned, yes. Forget v6-only right now. Dual-stack is an
operationally-harder problem, and it's a necessary prerequisite.

For some situations at this point, that may not actually be true. It will be
soon enough that it won't even be possible.

Owen

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:04:23 EST, Joe Abley said:
 I don't think this has ever been cited as a global, general threat that
 must be eliminated (just as people are generally happy to use the same
 credit card as they move around the planet and don't generally stress
 about the implications).

It's not a global threat.  However, it *is* a *specific* threat to some people.

We support the ability of students to restrict directory information to
various levels, from don't list home address to  we won't admit they are a
student without a court order or other authorization. I happen to know that
299 students (out of roughly 7,000) in our graduating class currently have
their privacy set high enough to exclude them from being listed in the program
for the 2011 graduation ceremony.  Sure would be a shame if the network itself
insisted on making them trackable...

(Some of these students are just privacy minded, but we have a fair number that
are children of diplomats/etc, or are literally in hiding from ex'es or
non-custodial parents and have restraining orders out - these people *really*
don't want to be tracked/found...)




pgpKebaVWF0qI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 28 Feb 2011, at 16:57, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:04:23 EST, Joe Abley said:
 I don't think this has ever been cited as a global, general threat that
 must be eliminated (just as people are generally happy to use the same
 credit card as they move around the planet and don't generally stress
 about the implications).
 
 It's not a global threat.  However, it *is* a *specific* threat to some 
 people.
 
 We support the ability of students to restrict directory information to
 various levels, from don't list home address to  we won't admit they are a
 student without a court order or other authorization. I happen to know that
 299 students (out of roughly 7,000) in our graduating class currently have
 their privacy set high enough to exclude them from being listed in the program
 for the 2011 graduation ceremony.  Sure would be a shame if the network itself
 insisted on making them trackable...
 
 (Some of these students are just privacy minded, but we have a fair number 
 that
 are children of diplomats/etc, or are literally in hiding from ex'es or
 non-custodial parents and have restraining orders out - these people *really*
 don't want to be tracked/found...)
 
 

But you still need to know who they are so that when the court order pops 
through your door and it turns out they have been brewing up anthrax in the 
biology lab you'll want to be able to identify the IP address that was 
responsible for the nick binladen on the \terrorists channel on EFnet, yeah?

I really do not care less if people are tracked/found/whatever externally, so 
long as internally I can identify with some fair degree of certainty who had 
that address at any one time.

And so in order to fix this we have people writing perl scripts to hoover up 
tidbits of information from snoop ports or routers. At least with DHCP you 
actually get a log on a box who who had what.

--
Leigh Porter

OT: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams


OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ...

For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs} 
are most vexing?


For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber 
{expectations | behaviors} are most vexing?


Thanks in advance,
Eric

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Nathan Eisenberg

Some provider woes:

FAX over VOIP is a PITA.  I've not yet seen an ATA or softswitch that handled 
it reliably.

E911 for mobile devices sucks.  Regulations, and the E911 system, do not seem 
to have the flexibility for handling this in a seamless way.

Call routing (on a more global scale) sucks.  Keeping calls pure IP is sexy, 
but the routing protocol for it is nonexistent (and please don't say ENUM).

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Cameron Byrne

On Feb 28, 2011 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:

That's dual-stack as in
dual-stack-except-one-of-the-stacks-really-doesn't-work-properly-so-we'll-fudge-around-it?
:-)

You're describing where we are. I'm talking about where I think we
should be planning to arrive.

Your description sounds more like where we should be making a plane
change.
The eventual destination is IPv6-only. Dual-stack is a temporary stopover
along the way.
However, you are partially right in that we should be focusing on arriving
at the first
stop-over until we arrive there. Then we can start navigating from there
to the final
destination.

Look, my original point is that RA is a brilliant solution for a
problem which never really existed. Now, can we all just ignore RA and work
towards DHCPv6 because that's what's actually needed in the real world?

RA and DHCPv6 work together. It's different from DHCP in IPv4. Run with
it. Sending people back to the drawing board at this late stage in the game
(a) isn't going to happen and (b) isn't going to help anybody.

And the model breaks badly at layers 8-10 in most enterprises and many
other organizations.

We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any
arbitrary ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up ipv6.google.com
.

Is that too high a standard to work towards? :-)

As I thought I mentioned, yes. Forget v6-only right now. Dual-stack is
an operationally-harder problem, and it's a necessary prerequisite.

For some situations at this point, that may not actually be true. It will
be soon enough that it won't even be possible.

Owen is right. Ipv6-only is a very near term reality for networks with very
fast growing edges like mobile phones and wireless machine to machine
communications. It is not prudent to install an electricity meter today with
a 30 year expected life span ... and include ipv4. These systems are being
deployed today as ipv6 only, not in the future. Also, you can expect many
types of mobile phones to be ipv6-only soon. Ipv4 is not going away, dual
stack fell short of being the universal transition mechanism but is still
useful in many palaces -especially content hosts, and ipv6-only will pop up
soon in as many places as it possibly makes sense. Remember, from a network
planner / designer / architect perspective, ipv4 is not a resource for
future network growth.

Owen

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread nanog


Power supply!

Old POTS is remote-power-suplied,
so the phone will work for hours, days or even weeks
from remote battery power.

In my area, one mobile network was off after 4h,
the other after 10h, 
but my good-old analogue telefone did work all the
time during an 40h power outage (it was 11 years ago). 

Juergen.

 -Original Message-
 From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nat...@atlasnetworks.us] 
 Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:33 PM
 To: NANOG list
 Subject: RE: What vexes VoIP users?
 
 Some provider woes:
 
 FAX over VOIP is a PITA.  I've not yet seen an ATA or 
 softswitch that handled it reliably.
 
 E911 for mobile devices sucks.  Regulations, and the E911 
 system, do not seem to have the flexibility for handling this 
 in a seamless way.
 
 Call routing (on a more global scale) sucks.  Keeping calls 
 pure IP is sexy, but the routing protocol for it is 
 nonexistent (and please don't say ENUM).

Re: What vexes VoIP users?



Simplicity.

POTS lets me plug almost anything in from the past who-knows-how-many-years and 
it just works. When it breaks, I can go next door and borrow a telephone.

When I can pick up an automagically configured VoIP device from a huge 
selection down at the local electronics shop and when it just works at my house 
and my kids houses then it will be interesting.

VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this 
list, not my mother.

--
Leigh


On 28 Feb 2011, at 17:55, na...@ilk.net wrote:

 
 Power supply!
 
 Old POTS is remote-power-suplied,
 so the phone will work for hours, days or even weeks
 from remote battery power.
 
 In my area, one mobile network was off after 4h,
 the other after 10h, 
 but my good-old analogue telefone did work all the
 time during an 40h power outage (it was 11 years ago). 
 
 Juergen.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nat...@atlasnetworks.us] 
 Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:33 PM
 To: NANOG list
 Subject: RE: What vexes VoIP users?
 
 Some provider woes:
 
 FAX over VOIP is a PITA.  I've not yet seen an ATA or 
 softswitch that handled it reliably.
 
 E911 for mobile devices sucks.  Regulations, and the E911 
 system, do not seem to have the flexibility for handling this 
 in a seamless way.
 
 Call routing (on a more global scale) sucks.  Keeping calls 
 pure IP is sexy, but the routing protocol for it is 
 nonexistent (and please don't say ENUM).

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Bret Clark


On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:


VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this 
list, not my mother.

--
Leigh


Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
  VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
  this list, not my mother.

 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
 whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!

I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, not
to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address.  On
the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on TV
these days - if VoIP is too niche, how are those two making any money?



pgpCRfSUaSLpa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On 2/28/2011 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:

On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:


VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for 
people on this list, not my mother.


--
Leigh


Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!



Very true, remember that VOIP includes Packet Cable (as opposed to SIP 
from Vonage etc all)  from cable providers which is largely a POTs 
replacement service from the end users stand point.  Comcast is now a 
top 5 phone provider in the US.  This is anecdotal, but most of the 
Magic Jack (which is SIP AFAIK) purchases I see are non-technical people.


--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:29, Bret Clark wrote:

 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 --
 Leigh
 
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be whining 
 about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 

And how many grandmothers do you think are responsible for this downturn? Not 
many I'll bet. The downturn will be down to cell phones and the odd person who 
gets cable and finds they can do with skype or something.

People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a VoIP 
device into the back of their router.

--
Leigh Porter

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
 whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 
 I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, not
 to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address.  
 On
 the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on TV
 these days - if VoIP is too niche, how are those two making any money?
 

I do not live over there, I have never seen a Vonage or Magic jack or any other 
VoIP service ad on TV in the UK, ever. 

It is quite a different market here. I can get POTS services over the same 
copper from, I'd say, about 5 different companies. Maybe more, I have not 
counted. I guess the competition already available on the copper would largely 
preclude anything but the cheapest VoIP service.

--
Leigh

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


They are in the US.

Comcast tallies 8.6 million household telephone service accounts, making 
it the United States' third-largest telephone provider. As of February 
16, 2011 Comcast has 8.610 million voice customers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone

People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a VoIP 
device into the back of their router.

--
Leigh Porter







--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Jameel Akari



On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:

On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:

On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:

VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this 
list, not my mother.



Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!


I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, not
to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address.  On
the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on TV
these days - if VoIP is too niche, how are those two making any money?


It's more cellphones than VoIP or cable provider services, but the latter 
two are still eating POTS' lunch in the US - even if you don't count 
something like FiOS where Verizon tears out your copper POTS and moves 
your line to their ONC.


It is quite a different market here. I can get POTS services over the 
same copper from, I'd say, about 5 different companies. Maybe more, I 
have not counted. I guess the competition already available on the 
copper would largely preclude anything but the cheapest VoIP service.


Sounds very different indeed.  In the US, it's basically your local Ma 
Bell derivative, or something not-POTs.  Anecodtally, as of this morning 
we just dropped one of our POTS lines for the cable company's alternative. 
Cost dropped from $69/mo to $29/mo right there.


With say, Verizon POTS you're looking at nearly $30/mo just for dialtone, 
with everything else (outbound calls, LD, caller ID...) extra.  Now there 
is some added value in real POTS, but it's awfully hard to justify the 
cost difference.



--
Jameel Akari

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.

Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:

vex |veks|
verb [ trans. ]
make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial matters 
: the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [as adj. ] ( vexing)the most 
vexing questions for policymakers.]

Alright, now that that's out of the way...

I am only referring to small medium business and some enterprise (Those are all 
our customers, we do not do residential)
- Seemingly complex.
- Worried about the What if the internet goes down scenario.
- Call quality.
- Price
- Location
- Outages

Responses:
- Seemingly complex... Very true. Most VoIP companies, both hosted and on 
premises are difficult/time consuming to setup and make work they way you want 
it. 
- What if the internet goes down. This one is a challenge. POTS actually have 
issues too, but when analog phone service goes down, there is no light on the 
phone indicating that the phones are not working so many customers perceive 
there is a problem. With the FCC mandating all POTS move to a VoIP backend 
(which for long hauls, is mostly already true) POTS will experience the same 
downtime as the internet. 
However as we all know, the internet is built to tolerate outages. 
For most people they don't understand how the internet actually works.
- Call quality... If a VoIP company pays for good bandwidth and maintains good 
relationships with peers, the only concern is the last-mile(From the CO to 
location). Now there is much more that plays in quality, ie. codec selection, 
voice buffer, locality to the pbx.
- Price... Believe it or not people are worried about paying less for better 
service. Who would have thought?
- Location... Location is super important both in the last mile and PBX.
- Last mile:
In older locations the copper in the ground is aged, if you 
can't get fiber and your stuck using T1, lines, then hopefully you are in a 
location that keeps the copper in the ground properly maintained. If you are in 
older locations, which one of our offices are, there are remedies, you can 
contact your bandwidth provider and have them do a head to head test using a 
BERD (bit error rate detector) and they can find the problem. But that's a 
whole other topic.

-PBX:
Some people believe that on premise is the best location for a 
PBX, this may or may not be true. I happen to believe that keeping it off 
premise is the way to go. You get up-time, redundancy, locality, and mobility. 
You just plug in your phone and your phone is up and running. Move offices.. 
got bandwidth? Your good to go. No equipment to worry about, say a power outage 
happens, your voicemail still works people call in and are in call queues and 
have no clue you are down. Feels more like POTS with an enterprise backend.

-Outages: If the internet does fail, most providers offer WAN survivability. 
The customer plugs in phone lines into the router and if the internet goes 
down, they can make emergency calls or calls to the world limited by the number 
of lines the router can accept and are plugged in of course. Now in all our 
experience going on 7 years now, 90% of the time WAN outages happen, guess what 
also dies, the POTS! Who would have thought that when cables get cut, that the 
phone lines were also part of the cables?

There you go, some common worries, with some answers to hopefully sooth the 
vexed VoIP user.

Bret Palsson
Sr. Network  Systems Administrator
www.getjive.com


On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
 whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 
 I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, not
 to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address.  
 On
 the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on TV
 these days - if VoIP is too niche, how are those two making any money?

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On 28 Feb 2011, at 19:03, Jameel Akari wrote:

 Sounds very different indeed.  In the US, it's basically your local Ma Bell 
 derivative, or something not-POTs.  Anecodtally, as of this morning we just 
 dropped one of our POTS lines for the cable company's alternative. Cost 
 dropped from $69/mo to $29/mo right there.
 
 With say, Verizon POTS you're looking at nearly $30/mo just for dialtone, 
 with everything else (outbound calls, LD, caller ID...) extra.  Now there is 
 some added value in real POTS, but it's awfully hard to justify the cost 
 difference.
 
 
 -- 
 Jameel Akari
 

Yeah I am thankful for the competition we have over here now!

I think that if I were 'over there' then I would be using VoIP as well.

--
Leigh Porter

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works 
particularly
well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT pool.

You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they 
consistently
get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.

Owen

On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Bret Palsson wrote:

 Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
 
 Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
 
 vex |veks|
 verb [ trans. ]
 make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial 
 matters : the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [as adj. ] ( 
 vexing)the most vexing questions for policymakers.]
 
 Alright, now that that's out of the way...
 
 I am only referring to small medium business and some enterprise (Those are 
 all our customers, we do not do residential)
 - Seemingly complex.
 - Worried about the What if the internet goes down scenario.
 - Call quality.
 - Price
 - Location
 - Outages
 
 Responses:
 - Seemingly complex... Very true. Most VoIP companies, both hosted and on 
 premises are difficult/time consuming to setup and make work they way you 
 want it. 
 - What if the internet goes down. This one is a challenge. POTS actually have 
 issues too, but when analog phone service goes down, there is no light on the 
 phone indicating that the phones are not working so many customers perceive 
 there is a problem. With the FCC mandating all POTS move to a VoIP backend 
 (which for long hauls, is mostly already true) POTS will experience the same 
 downtime as the internet. 
 However as we all know, the internet is built to tolerate outages. 
 For most people they don't understand how the internet actually works.
 - Call quality... If a VoIP company pays for good bandwidth and maintains 
 good relationships with peers, the only concern is the last-mile(From the CO 
 to location). Now there is much more that plays in quality, ie. codec 
 selection, voice buffer, locality to the pbx.
 - Price... Believe it or not people are worried about paying less for better 
 service. Who would have thought?
 - Location... Location is super important both in the last mile and PBX.
   - Last mile:
   In older locations the copper in the ground is aged, if you 
 can't get fiber and your stuck using T1, lines, then hopefully you are in a 
 location that keeps the copper in the ground properly maintained. If you are 
 in older locations, which one of our offices are, there are remedies, you can 
 contact your bandwidth provider and have them do a head to head test using a 
 BERD (bit error rate detector) and they can find the problem. But that's a 
 whole other topic.
 
   -PBX:
   Some people believe that on premise is the best location for a 
 PBX, this may or may not be true. I happen to believe that keeping it off 
 premise is the way to go. You get up-time, redundancy, locality, and 
 mobility. You just plug in your phone and your phone is up and running. Move 
 offices.. got bandwidth? Your good to go. No equipment to worry about, say a 
 power outage happens, your voicemail still works people call in and are in 
 call queues and have no clue you are down. Feels more like POTS with an 
 enterprise backend.
 
 -Outages: If the internet does fail, most providers offer WAN survivability. 
 The customer plugs in phone lines into the router and if the internet goes 
 down, they can make emergency calls or calls to the world limited by the 
 number of lines the router can accept and are plugged in of course. Now in 
 all our experience going on 7 years now, 90% of the time WAN outages happen, 
 guess what also dies, the POTS! Who would have thought that when cables get 
 cut, that the phone lines were also part of the cables?
 
 There you go, some common worries, with some answers to hopefully sooth the 
 vexed VoIP user.
 
 Bret Palsson
 Sr. Network  Systems Administrator
 www.getjive.com
 
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 
 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
 whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 
 I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, not
 to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address.  
 On
 the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on TV
 these days - if VoIP is too niche, how are those two making any money?

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

We haven't run into that issue and have very large clients.

I'm interested to find out where you may have run into that issue?

-Bret

On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

 Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works 
 particularly
 well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT pool.
 
 You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they 
 consistently
 get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.
 
 Owen
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Bret Palsson wrote:
 
 Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
 
 Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
 
 vex |veks|
 verb [ trans. ]
 make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial 
 matters : the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [as adj. ] ( 
 vexing)the most vexing questions for policymakers.]
 
 Alright, now that that's out of the way...
 
 I am only referring to small medium business and some enterprise (Those are 
 all our customers, we do not do residential)
 - Seemingly complex.
 - Worried about the What if the internet goes down scenario.
 - Call quality.
 - Price
 - Location
 - Outages
 
 Responses:
 - Seemingly complex... Very true. Most VoIP companies, both hosted and on 
 premises are difficult/time consuming to setup and make work they way you 
 want it. 
 - What if the internet goes down. This one is a challenge. POTS actually 
 have issues too, but when analog phone service goes down, there is no light 
 on the phone indicating that the phones are not working so many customers 
 perceive there is a problem. With the FCC mandating all POTS move to a VoIP 
 backend (which for long hauls, is mostly already true) POTS will experience 
 the same downtime as the internet. 
 However as we all know, the internet is built to tolerate outages. 
 For most people they don't understand how the internet actually works.
 - Call quality... If a VoIP company pays for good bandwidth and maintains 
 good relationships with peers, the only concern is the last-mile(From the CO 
 to location). Now there is much more that plays in quality, ie. codec 
 selection, voice buffer, locality to the pbx.
 - Price... Believe it or not people are worried about paying less for better 
 service. Who would have thought?
 - Location... Location is super important both in the last mile and PBX.
  - Last mile:
  In older locations the copper in the ground is aged, if you 
 can't get fiber and your stuck using T1, lines, then hopefully you are in a 
 location that keeps the copper in the ground properly maintained. If you are 
 in older locations, which one of our offices are, there are remedies, you 
 can contact your bandwidth provider and have them do a head to head test 
 using a BERD (bit error rate detector) and they can find the problem. But 
 that's a whole other topic.
 
  -PBX:
  Some people believe that on premise is the best location for a 
 PBX, this may or may not be true. I happen to believe that keeping it off 
 premise is the way to go. You get up-time, redundancy, locality, and 
 mobility. You just plug in your phone and your phone is up and running. Move 
 offices.. got bandwidth? Your good to go. No equipment to worry about, say a 
 power outage happens, your voicemail still works people call in and are in 
 call queues and have no clue you are down. Feels more like POTS with an 
 enterprise backend.
 
 -Outages: If the internet does fail, most providers offer WAN survivability. 
 The customer plugs in phone lines into the router and if the internet goes 
 down, they can make emergency calls or calls to the world limited by the 
 number of lines the router can accept and are plugged in of course. Now in 
 all our experience going on 7 years now, 90% of the time WAN outages happen, 
 guess what also dies, the POTS! Who would have thought that when cables get 
 cut, that the phone lines were also part of the cables?
 
 There you go, some common worries, with some answers to hopefully sooth the 
 vexed VoIP user.
 
 Bret Palsson
 Sr. Network  Systems Administrator
 www.getjive.com
 
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 
 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
 whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 
 I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, 
 not
 to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address. 
  On
 the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on 
 TV
 these days - if VoIP is too niche, how are those two making any money?

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Sorry I didn't include this in the last email...

We have large clients who have phones registered on multiples of public IPs 
from the same location. Works no problem. We do some trickery on our side to 
make that happen, but I thought all VoIP companies would do that.

-Bret

On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

 Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works 
 particularly
 well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT pool.
 
 You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they 
 consistently
 get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.
 
 Owen
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Bret Palsson wrote:
 
 Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
 
 Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
 
 vex |veks|
 verb [ trans. ]
 make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial 
 matters : the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [as adj. ] ( 
 vexing)the most vexing questions for policymakers.]
 
 Alright, now that that's out of the way...
 
 I am only referring to small medium business and some enterprise (Those are 
 all our customers, we do not do residential)
 - Seemingly complex.
 - Worried about the What if the internet goes down scenario.
 - Call quality.
 - Price
 - Location
 - Outages
 
 Responses:
 - Seemingly complex... Very true. Most VoIP companies, both hosted and on 
 premises are difficult/time consuming to setup and make work they way you 
 want it. 
 - What if the internet goes down. This one is a challenge. POTS actually 
 have issues too, but when analog phone service goes down, there is no light 
 on the phone indicating that the phones are not working so many customers 
 perceive there is a problem. With the FCC mandating all POTS move to a VoIP 
 backend (which for long hauls, is mostly already true) POTS will experience 
 the same downtime as the internet. 
 However as we all know, the internet is built to tolerate outages. 
 For most people they don't understand how the internet actually works.
 - Call quality... If a VoIP company pays for good bandwidth and maintains 
 good relationships with peers, the only concern is the last-mile(From the CO 
 to location). Now there is much more that plays in quality, ie. codec 
 selection, voice buffer, locality to the pbx.
 - Price... Believe it or not people are worried about paying less for better 
 service. Who would have thought?
 - Location... Location is super important both in the last mile and PBX.
  - Last mile:
  In older locations the copper in the ground is aged, if you 
 can't get fiber and your stuck using T1, lines, then hopefully you are in a 
 location that keeps the copper in the ground properly maintained. If you are 
 in older locations, which one of our offices are, there are remedies, you 
 can contact your bandwidth provider and have them do a head to head test 
 using a BERD (bit error rate detector) and they can find the problem. But 
 that's a whole other topic.
 
  -PBX:
  Some people believe that on premise is the best location for a 
 PBX, this may or may not be true. I happen to believe that keeping it off 
 premise is the way to go. You get up-time, redundancy, locality, and 
 mobility. You just plug in your phone and your phone is up and running. Move 
 offices.. got bandwidth? Your good to go. No equipment to worry about, say a 
 power outage happens, your voicemail still works people call in and are in 
 call queues and have no clue you are down. Feels more like POTS with an 
 enterprise backend.
 
 -Outages: If the internet does fail, most providers offer WAN survivability. 
 The customer plugs in phone lines into the router and if the internet goes 
 down, they can make emergency calls or calls to the world limited by the 
 number of lines the router can accept and are plugged in of course. Now in 
 all our experience going on 7 years now, 90% of the time WAN outages happen, 
 guess what also dies, the POTS! Who would have thought that when cables get 
 cut, that the phone lines were also part of the cables?
 
 There you go, some common worries, with some answers to hopefully sooth the 
 vexed VoIP user.
 
 Bret Palsson
 Sr. Network  Systems Administrator
 www.getjive.com
 
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 
 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be 
 whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 
 I do believe that the ILEC's are mostly losing POTS lines to cell phones, 
 not
 to VoIP. I myself have a cell phone but no POTS service at my home address. 
  On
 the other hand, I *am* seeing a metric ton of Vonage and Magic Jack ads on 
 TV

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Nathan Eisenberg

Odd - do the phones just randomly egress from different IPs in the pool if you 
don't?  Is this perhaps a too-long registration interval issue?  Short 
registration timers seem to deal with keeping the state table appeased on most 
firewalls.  Any chance the NAT device has some god-forsaken ALG agent installed 
that's trying to proxy the SIP traffic?

(Yes, I hate ALGs.  They are evil.)

Nathan

 -Original Message-
 From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
 Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:26 AM
 To: Bret Palsson
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
 
 Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works
 particularly well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT 
 pool.
 
 You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they
 consistently get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.
 
 Owen
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Bret Palsson wrote:
 
  Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
 
  Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
 
  vex |veks|
  verb [ trans. ]
  make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial
  matters : the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [as adj. ]
  ( vexing)the most vexing questions for policymakers.]
 
  Alright, now that that's out of the way...
 
  I am only referring to small medium business and some enterprise
  (Those are all our customers, we do not do residential)
  - Seemingly complex.
  - Worried about the What if the internet goes down scenario.
  - Call quality.
  - Price
  - Location
  - Outages
 
  Responses:
  - Seemingly complex... Very true. Most VoIP companies, both hosted and
 on premises are difficult/time consuming to setup and make work they way
 you want it.
  - What if the internet goes down. This one is a challenge. POTS actually
 have issues too, but when analog phone service goes down, there is no light
 on the phone indicating that the phones are not working so many customers
 perceive there is a problem. With the FCC mandating all POTS move to a VoIP
 backend (which for long hauls, is mostly already true) POTS will experience
 the same downtime as the internet.
  However as we all know, the internet is built to tolerate outages.
  For most people they don't understand how the internet actually works.
  - Call quality... If a VoIP company pays for good bandwidth and maintains
 good relationships with peers, the only concern is the last-mile(From the CO
 to location). Now there is much more that plays in quality, ie. codec 
 selection,
 voice buffer, locality to the pbx.
  - Price... Believe it or not people are worried about paying less for better
 service. Who would have thought?
  - Location... Location is super important both in the last mile and PBX.
  - Last mile:
  In older locations the copper in the ground is aged, if you
 can't get fiber and your stuck using T1, lines, then hopefully you are in a
 location that keeps the copper in the ground properly maintained. If you are
 in older locations, which one of our offices are, there are remedies, you can
 contact your bandwidth provider and have them do a head to head test using
 a BERD (bit error rate detector) and they can find the problem. But that's a
 whole other topic.
 
  -PBX:
  Some people believe that on premise is the best location for
 a PBX, this may or may not be true. I happen to believe that keeping it off
 premise is the way to go. You get up-time, redundancy, locality, and mobility.
 You just plug in your phone and your phone is up and running. Move offices..
 got bandwidth? Your good to go. No equipment to worry about, say a power
 outage happens, your voicemail still works people call in and are in call
 queues and have no clue you are down. Feels more like POTS with an
 enterprise backend.
 
  -Outages: If the internet does fail, most providers offer WAN survivability.
 The customer plugs in phone lines into the router and if the internet goes
 down, they can make emergency calls or calls to the world limited by the
 number of lines the router can accept and are plugged in of course. Now in all
 our experience going on 7 years now, 90% of the time WAN outages happen,
 guess what also dies, the POTS! Who would have thought that when cables
 get cut, that the phone lines were also part of the cables?
 
  There you go, some common worries, with some answers to hopefully
 sooth the vexed VoIP user.
 
  Bret Palsson
  Sr. Network  Systems Administrator
  www.getjive.com
 
 
  On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 
  On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
  On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
  VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
 this list, not my mother.
 
  Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
  whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Ahhh yes... ALG... Turn it off.

-Bret

On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:

 Any chance the NAT device has some god-forsaken ALG agent installed that's 
 trying to proxy the SIP traffic?

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Randy Bush

 It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
 solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why
 people keep fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be
 working towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack
 environment. There's no point worrying about v6-only operations if we
 can't get dual-stack working reliably.

facile but fallacious fanboyism

  o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.

  o if ipv6 can not stand on its own, then dual-stack is a joke that
will be very un-funny very shortly, as one partner in the marriage
is a dummy.

randy

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:

  o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.

Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to be able 
to stand on its own two feet? Because I wasn't; that's patently absurd.

However, a fixation on v6-only operation makes no sense for general-purpose 
deployment when most content and peers are only reachable via IPv4.

I appreciate that there are walled gardens, captive mobile applications, 
telemetry networks and other niche applications for which v6-only networks make 
sense today. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the network that 
supports what the average user thinks of as the Internet.

The immediate task at hand is a transition from IPv4-only to dual stack, 
regardless of how many NATs or other transition mechanisms the IPv4 half of the 
dual stack is provisioned through.


Joe

Re: What If....

2011-02-28 Thread Brian E Carpenter

On 2011-02-26 10:34, bill manning wrote:
 The IANA function was split?

RFC 2860 already did that. It seems to work well.

 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf

I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
computer diskette in HTML, ASCII,
Word or WordPerfect format (please
specify version).

   Brian

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Randy Bush

  o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.
 
 Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to
 be able to stand on its own two feet?

you may want to read your words and the thread which followed.

randy

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Jeff Kell

On 2/27/2011 11:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
 No, when I first played with IPv6 only network, I found out that RD was 
 silly, it gives an IP adddress but no DNS, and you have to rely on IPv4 to do 
 that. silly, so my understanding is then people saw the mistake, and added 
 some DNS resolution... Because the only option was to get DHCPv6 to get the 
 DNS, but then why create RD in the first place?

Well, for the malware authors, it really is an awful lot of trouble to go 
broadcasting
gratuitous ARPs claiming to be the default gateway, and then blasting those 
spoofed
gratuitous ARPs at the gateway claiming to be the clients, and having to do all 
that
packet-forwarding foo just to get to be the man-in-the-middle...  when you can 
just
generate an RA and you don't even have to set the evil bit!!

And why bother with all those silly DNS-changer malware pointing the resolvers 
off to
Inhoster-land so you can provide your own interesting answers for interesting 
names
you'd like to phish, when you can just sit there and listen on the DNS anycast 
address
and answer the ones you want!!

And why bother parsing out the Facebook friends or AOL buddies or MSN contacts 
list to
spew out those phishing URLs to everybody we know, when we can just sit back 
and let
Bonjour/Rendezvous/iChat do all the work for us?

Plug and Play malware is the future :-)

Jeff

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 15:38, Randy Bush wrote:

 you may want to read your words and the thread which followed.

The phrase you apparently missed (or which was not sufficient for me to explain 
myself clearly) was viable, general-purpose solution.


Joe

RE: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread George Bonser

 From: Randy Bush 
 Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:27 PM
 To: Joe Abley
 Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
 Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

  It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
  solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why
  people keep fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to
 be
  working towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack
  environment. There's no point worrying about v6-only operations if
we
  can't get dual-stack working reliably.

 facile but fallacious fanboyism

   o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
 of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
 better be able to stand on its own.

   o if ipv6 can not stand on its own, then dual-stack is a joke that
 will be very un-funny very shortly, as one partner in the marriage
 is a dummy.

 randy

Dual stack isn't always the best approach.  For networks that pass a
large amount of traffic to a relatively small number of destinations,
NAT64/DNS64 on a native v6 platform might be a better migration
approach.  If 90% of your traffic is v6, it is probably less trouble to
use NAT64/DNS64 to reach that 10% than it is to dual-stack.  

Networks such as the sort described above would be expected to see the
majority of their traffic migrate very quickly to v6 once only a few
remote networks are v6 capable.  This is a case where the pain is
front-loaded.  The amount of NAT64/DNS64 required to support such a
topology is great at first, then quickly steps down as the destinations
exchanging the most traffic become v6 capable, and then gradually tails
off as the outliers catch up.

G

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Jared Mauch

Any idea how to workaround the uverse broken alg? I've had to do some fun hacks 
to work around it. Sometimes I can reboot or crash them with the cisco notify 
for config check. 

Jared Mauch

On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Bret Palsson b...@getjive.com wrote:

 Ahhh yes... ALG... Turn it off.
 
 -Bret
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
 
 Any chance the NAT device has some god-forsaken ALG agent installed that's 
 trying to proxy the SIP traffic?

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Leo Bicknell

In a message written on Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:49:36PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
 I do think though, that assuming DHCP is the way to get some of these
 things might be shooting from the hip. Perhaps there is a better way,
 with IPv6?

DHCP is a terrible protocol for 2011, and will be an old school
throwback by 2040.  The fact that it's the option on the table for
IPv6 is a shame.

 The difficulty is that now everyone is in a tearing hurry; they just
 want everything to work the exact same way, and they want it NOW. There
 is suddenly no time to work out better ways. And goodness knows there
 must be a better way to boot a remote image than delivering an address
 via DHCP!

Those who designed IPv6 appear to have ignored the problem space.
They could have offered a better solution, but did not.  There
seemed to be this idea that most of what DHCP did was deliver an
address, which is a very naive way of looking at it.  So they came
up with a new method to get an address and ignored the rest of the
usage models.

Bootp nee DHCP was designed in an era where a TCP stack in an
embedded device was a costly addition.  Now a full TCP/IP stack
comes for free with a $0.50 micro-controller.  If RA's could give
out a configuration IP address hosts could tftp/http/whatever
down a config file, text, xml, some new format.  There could have
been innovation in the space, and the time to sell people that it
was the right thing to do.

For some reason though we all went head in the sand.  And I mean
all, operators ignored the IETF until it was too late, the IETF
decided the operators didn't know what they were talking about
and/or were stuck in an IPv4 world.  So now we have a gap, a very
short time frame, and only one half done solution on the table.
We'll likely have to run with it as starting over now would take
too much time.

It's really a gigantic missed opportunity that probably will only
come along every few decades.  Maybe the next time around we'll do
better.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgp2jW5w0TAkB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What If....

2011-02-28 Thread Michael Hallgren

Le lundi 28 février 2011 à 15:50 -0500, Edward Lewis a écrit :
 At 9:35 +1300 3/1/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 
   http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
 
 I'm glad to see they are up to date:
 Paper submissions should
 include a three and one-half inch
 computer diskette in HTML, ASCII,
 Word or WordPerfect format (please
 specify version).

Any problem with Postscript or PDF? Somewhat less clumsy with versions
than Word*. Computer diskette... timing :)

 
 Certainly a deterrent against paper submissions. ;)  Quite green of them!

Positive! ;)

mh

Re: What If....


On 28 Feb 2011, at 20:50, Edward Lewis wrote:

 At 9:35 +1300 3/1/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 
 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
 
 I'm glad to see they are up to date:
 Paper submissions should
 include a three and one-half inch
 computer diskette in HTML, ASCII,
 Word or WordPerfect format (please
 specify version).
 
 Certainly a deterrent against paper submissions. ;)  Quite green of them!

Because a lump of plastic with metal bits is far greener than a few bits of 
potentially re-cycled paper ;-)



--
Leigh

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Cutler James R


On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:

 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 --
 Leigh
 
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be whining 
 about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 

I would suggest that the exponential decrease in POTS is driven by cell phones, 
not VOIP - I just get my cell phone from the store, any store, and use it, 
almost anywhere. It's just like my land line but without the wire tether. I get 
wireless without VOIP complications.

Of course, we could discuss Long Distance rates for land lines vs cell or Skype 
(VOIP for almost free). But that is really another discussion.

James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Mark Andrews


In message 28d10d13-988b-4c7d-833b-eba6e1bc1...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley writes
:
 
 On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
 
  I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / =
 explanations about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp =
 and ipv4 packets from the conference network and depends entirely on =
 ipv6 for connectivity for the entire conference.
 
 It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose solution =
 to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why people keep =
 fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working =
 towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no =
 point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack =
 working reliably.
 
 [I also find the knee-jerk it's different from IPv4, the IETF is =
 stupid memes to be tiring. Identifying questionable design decisions =
 with hindsight is hardly the exclusive domain of IPv6; there are =
 tremendously more crufty workarounds in IPv4, and far more available =
 hindsight. Complaining about IPv6 because it's different from IPv4 =
 doesn't get us anywhere.]

Because the machines we deploy today may still be running in 10 years and
we don't want them stopping the network going IPv6 only then.

 Joe=
 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: What If....

2011-02-28 Thread David Conrad

On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
 I'm glad to see they are up to date:
 Paper submissions should
 include a three and one-half inch
 computer diskette in HTML, ASCII,
 Word or WordPerfect format (please
 specify version).
 
 Any problem with Postscript or PDF? Somewhat less clumsy with versions
 than Word*. Computer diskette... timing :)

No, there is no problem with sending electronic-only submissions.  The 
requirement to include a 3.5 floppy is only if you send them paper (I wonder 
if anyone still does that...).

Regards,
-drc

Hughesnet outage - where can I ask?

2011-02-28 Thread Greg Ihnen

I run a small network in the jungle of Venezuela which is fed by a rebranded 
Hughesnet connection. We just had a four day failure where the only protocol 
that worked was ICMP and we were completely without communication. Traceroutes 
all failed in a bizarre way when using UDP, TCP or GRE packets but traceroute 
with ICMP worked fine. Our provider (Bantel) is blaming Hughesnet but I'm not 
finding anything to back that up in forums or in searching the web. I don't 
want to bother this forum's members with my questions regarding what the 
traceroute results show and what the problem might be. Is there another forum 
where these questions would be appropriate? Thanks in advance.

Greg

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

 
 On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
 
 o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
   of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
   better be able to stand on its own.
 
 Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to be able 
 to stand on its own two feet? Because I wasn't; that's patently absurd.
 
It is both absurd and pretty much exactly what you said.

 However, a fixation on v6-only operation makes no sense for general-purpose 
 deployment when most content and peers are only reachable via IPv4.
 
I guess this is a matter of perspective. For some of us that already have 
complete dual stack deployments,
focusing on the issues present in IPv6-only operation is just the next logical 
step.

In some cases, I would say that the v6-only considerations are well worth 
considering as you prepare
to deploy dual-stack so that you don't deploy dual-stack in such a way as to 
create unnecessary
inter-protocol dependencies that will hurt you later.

The reality is that IPv6-only networks are not likely in the foreseeable future 
is only a true statement
if your foreseeable future ends in the past. There are already a certain number 
of functional operating
deployed IPv6-only networks. Further, it's not going to be more than a few 
months before we start
seeing networks that have very limited or degraded IPv4 capabilities, if any, 
due to the inability to
grant addresses to new networks in some areas.

 I appreciate that there are walled gardens, captive mobile applications, 
 telemetry networks and other niche applications for which v6-only networks 
 make sense today. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the network 
 that supports what the average user thinks of as the Internet.
 
And how do you think the average residential end user is going to see the IPv4 
internet next year?

 The immediate task at hand is a transition from IPv4-only to dual stack, 
 regardless of how many NATs or other transition mechanisms the IPv4 half of 
 the dual stack is provisioned through.
 
Yes, but, given the nearly immediate runout of IPv4, I would say that doing so 
in a way that best
facilitates IPv6-only hosts being functional is very much worthy of 
consideration in this process.

Owen

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

 They are in the US.
 
 Comcast tallies 8.6 million household telephone service accounts, making 
 it the United States' third-largest telephone provider. As of February 
 16, 2011 Comcast has 8.610 million voice customers.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
  People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a VoIP 
  device into the back of their router.

Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
most of the Comcast VoIP customers are handed off as RJ11 into legacy
POTS lines in the target residence.

In fact, I've had trouble finding any way to get our cable company to 
hand off their telephony service digitally, making the claims of digital
phone service a little laughable as they still hand it off analog.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

It's only an issue if you have a single gateway which is serving up multiple 
public addresses.

SIP is not the only traversal that breaks in this environment, but, it does 
choose to break in some
of the most interesting (especially to troubleshoot when you don't know that's 
what is causing
the problem) ways.

This was not the result of smart nat or ALG issues.

I will say that I have not seen a lot of environments that have a single 
gateway that maps clients
to a variety of external addresses and that may account for the number of 
colleagues that haven't
seen this issue before.

It is real. It does exist. It is all kinds of fun (not!) to troubleshoot the 
first time you encounter it.

(The SIP gets through the traversal just fine, but, usually one half (and not 
consistently the same
half) of the RTP streams don't.)

Owen

On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:

 I've found that sip alg on devices is badly broken and must be disabled. This 
 is true of ios and various consumer electronics devices. Nat traversal for 
 multiple devices is not an issue in any case I have seen. 
 
 Turning off smart nat usually solves it. 
 
 Jared Mauch
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Bret Palsson b...@getjive.com wrote:
 
 Sorry I didn't include this in the last email...
 
 We have large clients who have phones registered on multiples of public IPs 
 from the same location. Works no problem. We do some trickery on our side to 
 make that happen, but I thought all VoIP companies would do that.
 
 -Bret
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 
 Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works 
 particularly
 well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT pool.
 
 You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they 
 consistently
 get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.
 
 Owen
 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Bret Palsson wrote:
 
 Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
 
 Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
 
 vex |veks|
 verb [ trans. ]
 make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial 
 matters : the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [as adj. ] ( 
 vexing)the most vexing questions for policymakers.]
 
 Alright, now that that's out of the way...
 
 I am only referring to small medium business and some enterprise (Those 
 are all our customers, we do not do residential)
 - Seemingly complex.
 - Worried about the What if the internet goes down scenario.
 - Call quality.
 - Price
 - Location
 - Outages
 
 Responses:
 - Seemingly complex... Very true. Most VoIP companies, both hosted and on 
 premises are difficult/time consuming to setup and make work they way you 
 want it. 
 - What if the internet goes down. This one is a challenge. POTS actually 
 have issues too, but when analog phone service goes down, there is no 
 light on the phone indicating that the phones are not working so many 
 customers perceive there is a problem. With the FCC mandating all POTS 
 move to a VoIP backend (which for long hauls, is mostly already true) POTS 
 will experience the same downtime as the internet. 
 However as we all know, the internet is built to tolerate outages. 
 For most people they don't understand how the internet actually works.
 - Call quality... If a VoIP company pays for good bandwidth and maintains 
 good relationships with peers, the only concern is the last-mile(From the 
 CO to location). Now there is much more that plays in quality, ie. codec 
 selection, voice buffer, locality to the pbx.
 - Price... Believe it or not people are worried about paying less for 
 better service. Who would have thought?
 - Location... Location is super important both in the last mile and PBX.
   - Last mile:
   In older locations the copper in the ground is aged, if you can't 
 get fiber and your stuck using T1, lines, then hopefully you are in a 
 location that keeps the copper in the ground properly maintained. If you 
 are in older locations, which one of our offices are, there are remedies, 
 you can contact your bandwidth provider and have them do a head to head 
 test using a BERD (bit error rate detector) and they can find the problem. 
 But that's a whole other topic.
 
   -PBX:
   Some people believe that on premise is the best location for a PBX, 
 this may or may not be true. I happen to believe that keeping it off 
 premise is the way to go. You get up-time, redundancy, locality, and 
 mobility. You just plug in your phone and your phone is up and running. 
 Move offices.. got bandwidth? Your good to go. No equipment to worry 
 about, say a power outage happens, your voicemail still works people call 
 in and are in call queues and have no clue you are down. Feels more like 
 POTS with an enterprise backend.
 
 -Outages: If the internet does fail, most providers offer WAN 
 survivability. The customer plugs in phone lines

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On 2/28/2011 5:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone

People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a VoIP 
device into the back of their router.

Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
most of the Comcast VoIP customers are handed off as RJ11 into legacy
POTS lines in the target residence.
Of course they are, since users oddly enough like using their existing 
phones, extensions, and wiring.

In fact, I've had trouble finding any way to get our cable company to
hand off their telephony service digitally, making the claims of digital
phone service a little laughable as they still hand it off analog.
This is a bit disingenuous, are CD's not digital because the speakers 
you play the music from analog devices?  You can plug any ATA into the 
existing home wiring, including the ones that Vonage deploys:


http://support.vonage.com/doc/en_us/649.xml



--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Cutler James R wrote:

 
 On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
 
 On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
 
 VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on 
 this list, not my mother.
 
 --
 Leigh
 
 
 Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be whining 
 about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
 
 
 I would suggest that the exponential decrease in POTS is driven by cell 
 phones, not VOIP - I just get my cell phone from the store, any store, and 
 use it, almost anywhere. It's just like my land line but without the wire 
 tether. I get wireless without VOIP complications.
 
 Of course, we could discuss Long Distance rates for land lines vs cell or 
 Skype (VOIP for almost free). But that is really another discussion.
 
 James R. Cutler
 james.cut...@consultant.com
 
 
 
 
Pretty soon, cell phones will, essentially, be VOIP devices. In fact, some 
already are.

In fact, one could argue that LTE cell phones are in essence what VOIP will be 
when
it grows up.

It is clear that eventually voice will simply be an application on a packet 
switched
data network.

I believe that the frontier after that will be to replace HDMI with high-speed 
ethernet
and media will go from being a source-selector/sound-display solution to a
packet-switched source-network-destination solution where the destination
will be either a time/place shifting device (recorder) or an output 
(audio/video).

This frontier can't be crossed until multi-gigabit household networking becomes
commonplace, so, it will be a few years, but, I believe it will eventually 
occur.
I also believe that the RIAA/MPAA/etc. will do everything the can to prevent it
which will likely delay it for several more years.

Owen

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread David Barak

From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
I have no idea why anyone would be paying Ma Bell $69/month for a phone
line, unless you like giving them your money or something.

In my neck of the woods (Washington DC), the POTS line is the one that works 
during a bad power outage, and has qualitatively different failure modes than 
my 
cable service.  Whether that's something one wants to purchase is a different 
question.

David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

 On 2/28/2011 5:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
  People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a 
  VoIP device into the back of their router.
  Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
  most of the Comcast VoIP customers are handed off as RJ11 into legacy
  POTS lines in the target residence.

 Of course they are, since users oddly enough like using their existing 
 phones, extensions, and wiring.

So then let's argue that ILEC-delivered POTS is digital too, because it went
on fiber to the local SLC hut...  

  In fact, I've had trouble finding any way to get our cable company to
  hand off their telephony service digitally, making the claims of digital
  phone service a little laughable as they still hand it off analog.

 This is a bit disingenuous, are CD's not digital because the speakers 
 you play the music from analog devices? 

So's your handset. 

So let's look for a rational comparison instead. 

Take your CD player's analog audio output and run it fifty feet, 
making sure to route it along some nice fluorescent lights.  Even 
with a good shielded cable, analog signal is notorious for picking
up noise.

Now take your CD player's TOSLINK output and run it that same 
fifty feet.  I'm aware of the spec limits, but most modern gear
with good cables will do this without a problem - we're discussing
the difference between analog and digital here in any case. 

Anyways, listen to both and then let's talk about the difference
that carrying a signal in an analog format needlessly can make.

 You can plug any ATA into the 
 existing home wiring, including the ones that Vonage deploys:
 
 http://support.vonage.com/doc/en_us/649.xml

So here's the *point*:  if you have digital phones, maybe VoIP but could
also certainly be any of the proprietary digital systems, why should you
have to run through the ambiguity of a digital-to-analog-to-digital 
conversion?

With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
conditions, etc.

When you throw that one stupid and pointless analog hop in there, you
are suddenly limited and broken in so many ways.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

 From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net=0AI have no idea why anyone would be =
 paying Ma Bell $69/month for a phone=0Aline, unless you like giving them y=
 our money or something.=0A=0AIn my neck of the woods (Washington DC), the P=
 OTS line is the one that works =0Aduring a=A0bad=A0power outage, and has qu=
 alitatively different failure modes than my =0Acable service.=A0 Whether th=
 at's something one wants to purchase is a different =0Aquestion.=0A=0ADavid=
  Barak=0ANeed Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: =0Ahttp://www.listentothefranch=
 ise.com =0A=0A=0A  

In my neck of the woods, you can get a basic POTS line for $15/month if
it's important to you, local calls billed by the number of calls and the
normal LD charges.  Add a basic DSL service to that ($20) AND add a basic
unlimited VoIP service to that ($20) and suddenly you have the benefits
of POTS for emergencies *plus* Internet connectivity *plus* unlimited
worldwide calling for ~$60/month, which seems to me to be a better deal 
than what Ma Bell is likely to be giving you even if you're managing to 
pay them $69/month.  Toss in a UPS and a computer and you can even use
the Internet during power outages.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On 2011-02-28, at 17:04, Owen DeLong wrote:

 On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
 
 On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
 
 o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
  of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
  better be able to stand on its own.
 
 Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to be 
 able to stand on its own two feet? Because I wasn't; that's patently absurd.
 
 
 It is both absurd and pretty much exactly what you said.

Well, you misunderstood what I meant, which I'm sure is my own fault. I'm sure 
my view of the world is warped and unnatural, too, but most of you know that 
already. :-)

To me, delivering IPv6 to residential Internet users is the largest missing 
piece of the puzzle today. Those users generally have no technical support 
beyond what they can get from the helpdesk, and the race to the bottom has 
ensured that (a) the helpdesk isn't of a scale to deal with pervasive 
connectivity problems and (b) any user that spends more than an hour on the 
phone has probably burnt any profit he/she might have generated for the ISP 
that year, and hence anything that is likely to trigger that kind of support 
burden is either going to result in customers leaving, bankruptcy or both.

Small (say, under 50,000 customer) ISPs in my experience have a planning 
horizon which is less than five years from now. Anything further out than that 
is not foreseeable in the sense that I meant it. I have much less first-hand 
experience with large, carrier-sized ISPs and what I have is a decade old, so 
perhaps the small ISP experience is not universal, but I'd be somewhat 
surprised giving the velocity of the target and what I perceive as substantial 
inertia in carrier-sized ISPs whether there's much practical difference.

So, what's a reasonable target for the next five years?

1. Deployed dual-stack access which interact nicely with consumer CPEs and 
electronics, the IPv4 side of the stack deployed through increased use of NAT 
when ISPs run out of numbers.

2. IPv6-only access, CPE and hosts, with some kind of transition mechanism to 
deliver v4-only content (from content providers and v4-only peers) to the 
v6-only customers.

Perhaps it's because I've never seen a NAT-PT replacement that was any prettier 
than NAT-PT, but I don't see (2) being anything that a residential customer 
would buy before 2016. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't hear a lot of people 
shouting about their success.

Note, I'm not talking about the ISPs who have already invested time, capex and 
opex in deploying dual-stack environments. I'm talking about what I see as the 
majority of the problem space, namely ISPs who have not.


Joe

Re: What vexes VoIP users?




So then let's argue that ILEC-delivered POTS is digital too, because it went
on fiber to the local SLC hut...
It is, at least in some cases, and its even VOIP in a few (Occam BLC's 
for example).  Having said that its almost never derived voice of any 
type into the home because of life line requirements.



So's your handset.


That was kind of the point :)


So let's look for a rational comparison instead.

Take your CD player's analog audio output and run it fifty feet,
making sure to route it along some nice fluorescent lights.  Even
with a good shielded cable, analog signal is notorious for picking
up noise.

Now take your CD player's TOSLINK output and run it that same
fifty feet.  I'm aware of the spec limits, but most modern gear
with good cables will do this without a problem - we're discussing
the difference between analog and digital here in any case.

Anyways, listen to both and then let's talk about the difference
that carrying a signal in an analog format needlessly can make.



You're working under the incorrect assumption that a user can't simply 
plug into the back of their EMTA and I assure that isn't the case.  An 
operator can choose to not use the in home wiring, and in some installs 
this is the right method,  but in the case of decent wiring and existing 
analog sets the user is happy with there's no reason to do so.



You can plug any ATA into the
existing home wiring, including the ones that Vonage deploys:

http://support.vonage.com/doc/en_us/649.xml

So here's the *point*:  if you have digital phones, maybe VoIP but could
also certainly be any of the proprietary digital systems, why should you
have to run through the ambiguity of a digital-to-analog-to-digital
conversion?
I hate to tell you, but residential users don't to buy a new phone.  
They don't see any problem with their existing analog set and usually 
they're right.  We've been dealing with analog to digital conversions, 
at least one and sometimes two, in the local LEC system for decades 
without impacting MOS.  (It wasn't until GR-303 and TR-08 interfaces 
became common on switches that remote terminals got the signal digitally.)

With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
conditions, etc.

When you throw that one stupid and pointless analog hop in there, you
are suddenly limited and broken in so many ways.

... JG
What's broken for a residential user?  For that matter I'd rather get 
rid of every digital phone in our business, they're a waste of money, 
and run pure soft phones but until people start caring about voice (they 
don't, check cell MOS scores) and adopt wideband voice in numbers there 
is 0 reason for a home user to change.


--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message -
 From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net

 With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
 status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
 the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
 conditions, etc.
 
 When you throw that one stupid and pointless analog hop in there, you
 are suddenly limited and broken in so many ways.

Sure.

But I don't think it's the analog hop that people are really concerned
about *per se*... it's the fact that the traditional analog last-mile 
*connects you to a real CO*, with a real battery room, that's 
engineered -- in most cases, to cold-war standards, *through a loop with
very low complexity*.

If you have DC continuity and good balance to ground on a copper pair, 
you are *done*; no intermediate gear, no batteries, no config files,
nothing.

All I need at the residence is a 500 set, and the complexity of *those*
is super low, too.

The real, underlying problem is that people take insufficient notice
of all the complexity pinch points that they're engineering into loops
in exchange for the extra controllability they get because everything's
digital end to end.

When I'm bringing 31 T-spans into my call center, that extra complexity
is easily justifiable.

For grandma's phone?  Not so much.

And it doesn't *matter* whether it's riding on a cable internet link
the complexity of which is already amortized: you're now *adopting* that
complexity onto the voice service... the semantics of which (used to
be) very well understood and not at all complex at all.

From the user perception standpoint, I think, it's a tipping point
thing... just like Madison WI.

Cheers,
-- jr 'that was *not* an invitation' a

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

 Pretty soon, cell phones will, essentially, be VOIP devices. In fact,
 some already are.
 
 In fact, one could argue that LTE cell phones are in essence what VOIP
 will be when it grows up.

TTBOMK, that isn't *quite* true, yet, Owen.

The only US carrier with LTE deployed is VZW, and their only *handset* with LTE
is the not-yet-quite-shipped HTC Thunderbolt...

and it is my understanding that their first generation release of handsets will
*not* be doing PSTN voice as VoIP over the LTE data connection; they'll be
dual-mode handsets, using traditional (IS-95? IS-136?) CDMA voice on a 
separate RF deck.  The two reasons I've heard have to do with battery life
and the immaturity of the protocol stack or its implementations.

LTE-data-only with VoIP for the carrier PSTN service is indeed their goal,
but I don't think you can say Already are quite yet.

Cheers,
-- jra

Re: SLA for voice and video over IP/MPLS

2011-02-28 Thread William Herrin

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Anton Kapela tkap...@gmail.com wrote:
 One won't find many, but a common rule of thumb is most apps will be
 'fine' with networks that provide 10E-6 BER or lower loss rates.

Anton,

Who uses BER to measure packet switched networks? Is it even possible
to measure a bit error rate on a multihop network where a corrupted
packet will either be discarded in its entirety or transparently
resent?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

  So let's look for a rational comparison instead.
 
  Take your CD player's analog audio output and run it fifty feet,
  making sure to route it along some nice fluorescent lights.  Even
  with a good shielded cable, analog signal is notorious for picking
  up noise.
 
  Now take your CD player's TOSLINK output and run it that same
  fifty feet.  I'm aware of the spec limits, but most modern gear
  with good cables will do this without a problem - we're discussing
  the difference between analog and digital here in any case.
 
  Anyways, listen to both and then let's talk about the difference
  that carrying a signal in an analog format needlessly can make.
 
 You're working under the incorrect assumption that a user can't simply 
 plug into the back of their EMTA and I assure that isn't the case.  

No, I'm not, we were talking about a CD player, and I assure you it *is*
the case that I *can* do that.

 An 
 operator can choose to not use the in home wiring, and in some installs 
 this is the right method,  but in the case of decent wiring and existing 
 analog sets the user is happy with there's no reason to do so.

There may be no compelling reason to do so, at least.  However, digital
gear offers benefits, and some people want them.  Others, like me, live
in bad RF environments where POTS picks up too much noise unless you 
very carefully select your gear and shield your cables.  Further, the
digital phones support other features, such as the ability to manage 
multiple calls seamlessly, present Caller-ID reliably (even while you
are on another call), etc.

  You can plug any ATA into the
  existing home wiring, including the ones that Vonage deploys:
 
  http://support.vonage.com/doc/en_us/649.xml
  So here's the *point*:  if you have digital phones, maybe VoIP but could
  also certainly be any of the proprietary digital systems, why should you
  have to run through the ambiguity of a digital-to-analog-to-digital
  conversion?
 I hate to tell you, but residential users don't to buy a new phone.  

I hate to tell *you*, but the LEC's and cable companies like to hand 
off POTS to small businesses too.

 They don't see any problem with their existing analog set and usually 
 they're right.

Your argument:  This works fine for most people therefore it will
work for everyone.  Is that really what you're saying?

 What's broken for a residential user?  

That depends.  I've got many years of experience with POTS.  How about
a POTS phone that won't automatically hang up when the call is complete?
Really annoying when it's a speakerphone and you have to get up and walk
across the room to press one stupid button.  (Our Cisco 79xx gear is
*stellar* both in speakerphone quality and in handling such things).  How
about listening to the local radio station's broadcast on your POTS line
while making calls, because the cheap Taiwanese phone isn't sufficiently
shielded?  I don't really want or need to go on; POTS *stinks* compared
to digital.  I have no objection to you wanting your lines handed off as
POTS, but I'd like mine delivered digitally.

 For that matter I'd rather get 
 rid of every digital phone in our business, they're a waste of money, 
 and run pure soft phones but until people start caring about voice (they 
 don't, check cell MOS scores) and adopt wideband voice in numbers there 
 is 0 reason for a home user to change.

That's a matter of the consumer and their needs and wants.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: What vexes VoIP users?


On 28 Feb 2011, at 23:15, Jay Ashworth wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
 
 With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
 status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
 the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
 conditions, etc.
 
 When you throw that one stupid and pointless analog hop in there, you
 are suddenly limited and broken in so many ways.
 
 Sure.
 
 But I don't think it's the analog hop that people are really concerned
 about *per se*... it's the fact that the traditional analog last-mile 
 *connects you to a real CO*, with a real battery room, that's 
 engineered -- in most cases, to cold-war standards, *through a loop with
 very low complexity*.
 
 If you have DC continuity and good balance to ground on a copper pair, 
 you are *done*; no intermediate gear, no batteries, no config files,
 nothing.
 
 All I need at the residence is a 500 set, and the complexity of *those*
 is super low, too.
 
 The real, underlying problem is that people take insufficient notice
 of all the complexity pinch points that they're engineering into loops
 in exchange for the extra controllability they get because everything's
 digital end to end.
 
 When I'm bringing 31 T-spans into my call center, that extra complexity
 is easily justifiable.
 
 For grandma's phone?  Not so much.
 

Exactly the point I made earlier. POTS is simple, it does what it does and it 
is pretty good at it. Now, in the background, you have a whole lot of 
engineering. But I would trust a DMS100 far more than any of the stuff that 
routes IP.

POTS is cheap, easy, scalable and resistant to many disasters that would soon 
wipe any VoIP network out.


--
Leigh Porter

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

2011-02-28 Thread Cameron Byrne

On Feb 28, 2011 12:28 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

  It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
  solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why
  people keep fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be
  working towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack
  environment. There's no point worrying about v6-only operations if we
  can't get dual-stack working reliably.

 facile but fallacious fanboyism

  o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.

  o if ipv6 can not stand on its own, then dual-stack is a joke that
will be very un-funny very shortly, as one partner in the marriage
is a dummy.

+1
Well said. V6 needs to stand on its own.

Cb

 randy

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 2/28/2011 15:35, Joe Greco wrote:
 
 There may be no compelling reason to do so, at least.  However, digital
 gear offers benefits, and some people want them.  Others, like me, live
 in bad RF environments where POTS picks up too much noise unless you 
 very carefully select your gear and shield your cables.  Further, the
 digital phones support other features, such as the ability to manage 
 multiple calls seamlessly, present Caller-ID reliably (even while you
 are on another call), etc.
 


ISDN would have fit the bill nicely as a digital home phone line.
However, it never became popular in the US. I once read on Wikipedia
that it was popular in Germany.

~Seth

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

 Small (say, under 50,000 customer) ISPs in my experience have a planning 
 horizon which is less than five years from now. Anything further out than 
 that is not foreseeable in the sense that I meant it. I have much less 
 first-hand experience with large, carrier-sized ISPs and what I have is a 
 decade old, so perhaps the small ISP experience is not universal, but I'd be 
 somewhat surprised giving the velocity of the target and what I perceive as 
 substantial inertia in carrier-sized ISPs whether there's much practical 
 difference.
 
Ready or not, IPv6-only (or reasonably IPv6-only) residential customers are 
less than 2 years out, so, well within
your 5-year planning horizon, whether those ISPs see that or not. Denial is an 
impressive human phenomenon.

 So, what's a reasonable target for the next five years?
 
In five years we should be just about ready to start deprecating IPv4, if not 
already beginning to do so.

 1. Deployed dual-stack access which interact nicely with consumer CPEs and 
 electronics, the IPv4 side of the stack deployed through increased use of NAT 
 when ISPs run out of numbers.
 
Icky, but, probably necessary for some fraction of users. Ideally, we try to 
avoid these multi-NAT areas being
done in such a way that the end user in question doesn't also have reasonably 
clean IPv6 connectivity.

 2. IPv6-only access, CPE and hosts, with some kind of transition mechanism to 
 deliver v4-only content (from content providers and v4-only peers) to the 
 v6-only customers.
 
This is, IMHO, preferable to option 1.

 Perhaps it's because I've never seen a NAT-PT replacement that was any 
 prettier than NAT-PT, but I don't see (2) being anything that a residential 
 customer would buy before 2016. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't hear a lot of 
 people shouting about their success.
 
Personally, I think DS-Lite is the cleanest solution, but, it isn't without its 
issues. The reality is that post-runout
IPv4 is going to be ugly, regardless of whether it's NAT64 ugliness, LSN 
ugliness, or DS-LITE ugliness.

IPv4 is all about which flavor of bitter you prefer at this point. The 
sweetness is all on IPv6.

 Note, I'm not talking about the ISPs who have already invested time, capex 
 and opex in deploying dual-stack environments. I'm talking about what I see 
 as the majority of the problem space, namely ISPs who have not.
 
The majority of the problem space IMHO is end-user-space at ISPs that have put 
at least some dual-stack
research effort in, but, haven't come to solutions for end-users.

However, we're less than 2 years away from seeing what happens in those 
environments without IPv4.

Owen

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

 - Original Message -
  From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
 
  With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
  status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
  the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
  conditions, etc.
  
  When you throw that one stupid and pointless analog hop in there, you
  are suddenly limited and broken in so many ways.
 
 Sure.
 
 But I don't think it's the analog hop that people are really concerned
 about *per se*... it's the fact that the traditional analog last-mile 
 *connects you to a real CO*, with a real battery room, that's 
 engineered -- in most cases, to cold-war standards, *through a loop with
 very low complexity*.

Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy 
physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
back to a real CO with a real battery room these days when they're
deploying new copper.  So if you have a house built more than maybe
20 years ago, yeah, you're more likely to have a pair back to the CO,
but if you've ordered a second line, or you're in a new subdivision
and you're far from the CO, the chances you're actually on copper back
to the CO drops fairly quickly.

 If you have DC continuity and good balance to ground on a copper pair, 
 you are *done*; no intermediate gear, no batteries, no config files,
 nothing.
 
 All I need at the residence is a 500 set, and the complexity of *those*
 is super low, too.

Yes, it's elegant in a traditional way.  I certainly agree.  It has 
some benefits.  It also has some downsides in terms of usability,
things we wouldn't have noticed in 1970 but today we do.  In an age
when cell phones can handle multiple calls and deliver Caller-ID
for a waiting call, it's nice to see feature parity on your landline.

 The real, underlying problem is that people take insufficient notice
 of all the complexity pinch points that they're engineering into loops
 in exchange for the extra controllability they get because everything's
 digital end to end.

Looked at a different way, the cold-war reliability of the POTS network
maybe isn't quite as important as it once was.  If you have a cell phone 
and a VoIP line, maybe you're actually better off.  If a plane crashes into
your local CO, perhaps you lose POTS and even your cell because the tower
was at the local CO.  But if you've got a cell and a VoIP line that runs
over cable, maybe you actually have more diversity.

 When I'm bringing 31 T-spans into my call center, that extra complexity
 is easily justifiable.
 
 For grandma's phone?  Not so much.
 
 And it doesn't *matter* whether it's riding on a cable internet link
 the complexity of which is already amortized: you're now *adopting* that
 complexity onto the voice service... the semantics of which (used to
 be) very well understood and not at all complex at all.

Yes, but you *gain* capabilities as well as losing some of the benefits
of the old system.  We're gaining the ability to do things like texting
and transmitting pictures to 911 via the cellular network, for example.
Things change.  Maybe some people do not need a cold-war relic of a 
phone anymore.

 From the user perception standpoint, I think, it's a tipping point
 thing... just like Madison WI.
 
 Cheers,
 -- jr 'that was *not* an invitation' a

What, you want me to invite you for pizza in Madison?  I hear there's
some good places near the Capitol...

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

 This no intermediate gear term, it does not mean what you think it
 means...
 
 Loading coils, Bridge-Taps, WDFs, Protection Blocks, etc. all could
 be classified as intermediate gear. Many of these things have been
 the bane of DSL installations, so, you cannot claim that they have
 no effect on the circuit.

Sure.  But they're not really gear in the meaning in which we
use that term, and they do not add complexity to it in the meaning
in which *I* was using that term.  There are no batteries, CPUs, 
configuration files, etc, on any of those items.

I will grant that thing like TR-303 RSUs do introduce those complexities,
but they're generally treated as part of the CPU, IME, and engineered
and maintained that way, and they're not really all *that* configurable
either, as I understand them.

  When I'm bringing 31 T-spans into my call center, that extra
  complexity is easily justifiable.
 
  For grandma's phone? Not so much.

 For grandma, probably not. For myself, I like having a phone on my
 laptop that works just about any where in the world and allows me to make
 local calls in the US.

As do I.  And we do.

Was this subthread not about whether VoIP was *generically* ready to 
replace the PSTN's present last-mile provisioning?

Cheers,
-- jra

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message -
 From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net

 Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy
 physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
 back to a real CO with a real battery room these days when they're
 deploying new copper. So if you have a house built more than maybe
 20 years ago, yeah, you're more likely to have a pair back to the CO,
 but if you've ordered a second line, or you're in a new subdivision
 and you're far from the CO, the chances you're actually on copper back
 to the CO drops fairly quickly.

Ok, sure.  But probably to an RSU, which -- as I noted to Owen just now --
is engineered and monitored to quite a bit higher standards than I'm 
betting Comcast or FiOS is.

  If you have DC continuity and good balance to ground on a copper pair,
  you are *done*; no intermediate gear, no batteries, no config files,
  nothing.
 
  All I need at the residence is a 500 set, and the complexity of
  *those* is super low, too.
 
 Yes, it's elegant in a traditional way. I certainly agree. It has
 some benefits. It also has some downsides in terms of usability,
 things we wouldn't have noticed in 1970 but today we do. In an age
 when cell phones can handle multiple calls and deliver Caller-ID
 for a waiting call, it's nice to see feature parity on your landline.

Oh, I'm not arguing that.  

The question, for me, has always been are we taking full account
of the *features* we get from traditionally engineered copper POTS in
doing our cost benefit analysis to newer technologies...

and my answer was always don' look like it to me.

  The real, underlying problem is that people take insufficient notice
  of all the complexity pinch points that they're engineering into
  loops in exchange for the extra controllability they get because
  everything's
  digital end to end.
 
 Looked at a different way, the cold-war reliability of the POTS network
 maybe isn't quite as important as it once was. If you have a cell phone
 and a VoIP line, maybe you're actually better off. If a plane crashes into
 your local CO, perhaps you lose POTS and even your cell because the tower
 was at the local CO. But if you've got a cell and a VoIP line that runs
 over cable, maybe you actually have more diversity.

That's possible; there are *lots* of end-site use cases.

But that's end-user engineering; you could *always* improve your 
diversity if you were willing to put the time, though (and money)
into it.

  And it doesn't *matter* whether it's riding on a cable internet link
  the complexity of which is already amortized: you're now *adopting*
  that
  complexity onto the voice service... the semantics of which (used to
  be) very well understood and not at all complex at all.
 
 Yes, but you *gain* capabilities as well as losing some of the
 benefits of the old system. We're gaining the ability to do things like 
 texting
 and transmitting pictures to 911 via the cellular network, for
 example. Things change. Maybe some people do not need a cold-war relic of a
 phone anymore.

some people is, for me, the important phrase in that sentence.

Cell phones have killed off pay phones and utility-grade watches;
I'm not sure we're the better for it in either case.

And SMS to 911 is still a *teeny* little capability; I think there's 
*one* whole PSAP in the US equipped for it so far.

  From the user perception standpoint, I think, it's a tipping point
  thing... just like Madison WI.
 
  Cheers,
  -- jr 'that was *not* an invitation' a
 
 What, you want me to invite you for pizza in Madison? I hear there's
 some good places near the Capitol...

...to political arguments on NANOG.  Sorry not to show my work.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

  TTBOMK, that isn't *quite* true, yet, Owen.
 
  The only US carrier with LTE deployed is VZW, and their only
  *handset* with LTE is the not-yet-quite-shipped HTC Thunderbolt...
 
 That's the US market. We are, as usual, traditionally well behind the
 rest of the world.
 
  and it is my understanding that their first generation release of
  handsets will
  *not* be doing PSTN voice as VoIP over the LTE data connection;
  they'll be
  dual-mode handsets, using traditional (IS-95? IS-136?) CDMA voice on
  a
  separate RF deck. The two reasons I've heard have to do with battery
  life
  and the immaturity of the protocol stack or its implementations.
 
 Sad. There are definitely LTE-data-only VOIP handsets in other
 deployments.

Of course.  Silly me.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread TR Shaw


On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
 
 Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy
 physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
 back to a real CO with a real battery room these days when they're
 deploying new copper. So if you have a house built more than maybe
 20 years ago, yeah, you're more likely to have a pair back to the CO,
 but if you've ordered a second line, or you're in a new subdivision
 and you're far from the CO, the chances you're actually on copper back
 to the CO drops fairly quickly.
 
 Ok, sure.  But probably to an RSU, which -- as I noted to Owen just now --
 is engineered and monitored to quite a bit higher standards than I'm 
 betting Comcast or FiOS is.


Well, I have to go back to the hurricanes of 04 for a personal view of this 
higher standards.  

Cable went down because of cable cuts (expected) and because of no power backup 
longer than a short time with batteries.  CO's faired a scoch better but when 
their battery banks went dry it was over because the gensets never autostarted 
and there was no one here on the coast in central Florida to intervene.

All cell phones were toast except old Bell South. Local worked through both Cat 
3's and then LD came back later. Don't know whether it was towers with only 
short term batts or power to fiber was disrupted.  36+ hours after both Cat 3's 
all BellSouth wireless was back up but with load issues as you can imagine. 
Other carriers took days.

My home internet is wireless to my colo and then via 4 carriers out.  All but 
one carrier died after 24+ hours of outage. Colo was fine an humming.  Feedback 
later was that the problems were due to poor maintenance of generators and 
failover equipment and understanding of disasters.  

Bottom line is my VOIP worked because I had luck or at least I was proactive 
and my cell worked because I was lucky.

Today, given the margins and the amount of reinvestment and maintenance  I 
doubt that either cable or POTS would hack a disruption like this which is not 
out of the question. I doubt that they would do as good.

Tom
PS as for the comment that your mother wouldn't use VOIP, my mother in her 80's 
uses VOIP and loves it.

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:


- Original Message -

From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com



Sad. There are definitely LTE-data-only VOIP handsets in other
deployments.


Of course.  Silly me.  :-)


Couldn't fine Owens original post, so I'll ask here.

Which are these handsets? Could you provide some names, please? Since I 
work for an LTE operator and haven't heard about them I'd really like to 
know.


Considering the USB dongles get hot enough to fry eggs off of, I was under 
the impression it wasn't really possible to make a handset with a big 
enough battery to give any decent standby-time at this point in the tech 
evolution?


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.

2011-02-28 Thread Jeff Hartley

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
 On 2/18/11 6:30 AM, Matt Newsom matt.new...@rackspace.com wrote:

                 I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12  X
 10GE
 ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and can do GRE in
 hardware. Does anyone have a suggestion that might fit. Keep in mind
 I
 am
 looking for something in the 1-2U range and not a chassis.
 
 

 Hard to tell from the data sheet:

 http://www.xbridgeservices.com/images/files/7450_ess.pdf

 But it looks like the Alcatel-Lucent 7450 ESS-1 might do it.  Not sure
 if it has 4, 8, or 12 10G ports, though.  The data sheet is confusing to
 me and it would be oversubscribed but that might be OK in your
 applications.






Brocade TurboIron 24X fits all of those criteria.

-Jeff

Re: Hughesnet outage - where can I ask?

2011-02-28 Thread denys


On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:27:31 -0430, Greg Ihnen wrote:

I run a small network in the jungle of Venezuela which is fed by a
rebranded Hughesnet connection. We just had a four day failure where
the only protocol that worked was ICMP and we were completely without
communication. Traceroutes all failed in a bizarre way when using 
UDP,

TCP or GRE packets but traceroute with ICMP worked fine. Our provider
(Bantel) is blaming Hughesnet but I'm not finding anything to back
that up in forums or in searching the web. I don't want to bother 
this

forum's members with my questions regarding what the traceroute
results show and what the problem might be. Is there another forum
where these questions would be appropriate? Thanks in advance.

Greg

As ugly workaround maybe make IP over ICMP tunnel
http://thomer.com/icmptx/

My idea that maybe PEP (some acceleration software for tcp/udp) failed

Re: [v6z] Re: What vexes VoIP users?

2011-02-28 Thread Scott Howard

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:

 In my neck of the woods, you can get a basic POTS line for $15/month if
 it's important to you, local calls billed by the number of calls and the
 normal LD charges.  Add a basic DSL service to that ($20) AND add a basic
 unlimited VoIP service to that ($20) and suddenly you have the benefits
 of POTS for emergencies *plus* Internet connectivity *plus* unlimited
 worldwide calling for ~$60/month


Or just move to California, order residential dry-loop DSL from ATT (not
sure about via resellers) and they are required by law to give you dial-tone
and access to 911.

$20/month for the DSL, $0/month for the VOIP (via Google Voice and Asterisk)
and you've got the best of all worlds.

  Scott.

Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.

2011-02-28 Thread Theo Sison

Jeff,

I would try the 4900M
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps6021/ps9310/Data_Sheet_Cat_4900M.html

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps6021/ps9310/Data_Sheet_Cat_4900M.html
Theo

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Hartley
intensifysecur...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
  On 2/18/11 6:30 AM, Matt Newsom matt.new...@rackspace.com wrote:
 
  I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12  X
  10GE
  ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and can do GRE in
  hardware. Does anyone have a suggestion that might fit. Keep in mind
  I
  am
  looking for something in the 1-2U range and not a chassis.
  
  
 
  Hard to tell from the data sheet:
 
  http://www.xbridgeservices.com/images/files/7450_ess.pdf
 
  But it looks like the Alcatel-Lucent 7450 ESS-1 might do it.  Not sure
  if it has 4, 8, or 12 10G ports, though.  The data sheet is confusing to
  me and it would be oversubscribed but that might be OK in your
  applications.
 
 
 
 


 Brocade TurboIron 24X fits all of those criteria.

 -Jeff




-- 

Theo Sison
Solutions Architect
Google SNR: 720.663.THEO
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tsison

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6


On Feb 28, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

 Those who designed IPv6 appear to have ignored the problem space.


This is true of many, many aspects of IPv6.  And those of us who didn't get 
involved in the process to try and address (pardon the pun, heh) those problems 
bear a burden of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.

So, it's very obvious that there's a lot of work to be done in order to make 
pure IPv6 viable for a non-isignificant proportion of the user base (including 
spimes and such in that population).  Dual-stack is an appropriate transitional 
mechanism to make some steps towards that goal in some circumstances, and so it 
shouldn't be summarily dismissed, that's all.

---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6