Re: Hand held copper Ethernet testers

[Chris Boyd]

> On Sep 30, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Warren Kumari  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:33 PM Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> Chris Boyd wrote on 30/09/2020 21:24:
> > My old Test-Um Lanscaper died, and I was curious what people liked
> > these days. Don’t need throughput testing or anything like that, just
> > basic wire map testing, cable ID, cable length, PoE voltage, and DHCP
> > client.
> > 
> > What do y’all like?
> 
> https://pockethernet.com/ is pretty neat.
> 
> 
> Gr... 
> 
> Pockethernet *was* really great, but they ran into some issues and stopped 
> updating/ supporting the device/app.
> 
> Many people updated the firmware, only to discover that the new firmware was 
> no longer compatible with the iOS app. There were numerous issues with the 
> UI, it wasn’t compatible with newer iOS, etc. This was incredibly frustrating 
> because it was all so close to perfect...
> 
> I’ve just noticed that there is finally a new version - perhaps things are 
> now better; I really hope so, because the device itself has great potential, 
> just let down by the app…

That does look pretty cool. Appreciate the heads up on the app.

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Daniel Sterling]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Vincent Bernat  wrote:
> Not sure about that. To avoid cheaters, multiplayer games are likely to
> be mediated by a server running the same game engine to manage state of
> each player.

Probably veering off topic for the list here, but yes -- the advantage
to playing on an xbox is Microsoft has Locked Down the system, so you
encounter essentially no cheaters if you're connected to Microsoft's
multiplayer service (xbox live) and using dedicated FPS hosts.

MS seems to have successfully locked down xbox enough so that no one
has figured out a way to get on xbox live with a "hacked" xbox (one
running non-MS code). or if they have, that's a big enough zero day
they're keeping it to themselves.

Having a locked down system that prevents cheaters is a big plus for
CoD, which otherwise is indeed rife with "hacked lobbies" and even PCs
running hacked clients that connect to and successfully mess up the
state of a managed dedicated Activision server.

Re: Hand held copper Ethernet testers

[David Kotlerewsky]

Highly recommend the Fluke MicroScanner PoE tester, and more specifically the 
entire kit option, MS-POE-KIT. Has everything you would need to test copper 
runs with PoE up to Class 8.

On 9/30/20, 1:25 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Chris Boyd" 
 wrote:

My old Test-Um Lanscaper died, and I was curious what people liked these 
days. Don’t need throughput testing or anything like that, just basic wire map 
testing, cable ID, cable length, PoE voltage, and DHCP client.

What do y’all like?

—Chris

Re: Hand held copper Ethernet testers

[Warren Kumari]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:33 PM Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> Chris Boyd wrote on 30/09/2020 21:24:
> > My old Test-Um Lanscaper died, and I was curious what people liked
> > these days. Don’t need throughput testing or anything like that, just
> > basic wire map testing, cable ID, cable length, PoE voltage, and DHCP
> > client.
> >
> > What do y’all like?
>
> https://pockethernet.com/ is pretty neat.



Gr... 

Pockethernet *was* really great, but they ran into some issues and stopped
updating/ supporting the device/app.

Many people updated the firmware, only to discover that the new firmware
was no longer compatible with the iOS app. There were numerous issues with
the UI, it wasn’t compatible with newer iOS, etc. This was incredibly
frustrating because it was all so close to perfect...

I’ve just noticed that there is finally a new version - perhaps things are
now better; I really hope so, because the device itself has great
potential, just let down by the app...

W




>
> Nick
>
> --
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

Re: Hand held copper Ethernet testers

[Nick Hilliard]

Chris Boyd wrote on 30/09/2020 21:24:

My old Test-Um Lanscaper died, and I was curious what people liked
these days. Don’t need throughput testing or anything like that, just
basic wire map testing, cable ID, cable length, PoE voltage, and DHCP
client.

What do y’all like?


https://pockethernet.com/ is pretty neat.

Nick

Hand held copper Ethernet testers

[Chris Boyd]

My old Test-Um Lanscaper died, and I was curious what people liked these days. 
Don’t need throughput testing or anything like that, just basic wire map 
testing, cable ID, cable length, PoE voltage, and DHCP client.

What do y’all like?

—Chris

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 30 septembre 2020 09:45 -07, Owen DeLong:

> Games want to go peer-to-peer.

Not sure about that. To avoid cheaters, multiplayer games are likely to
be mediated by a server running the same game engine to manage state of
each player.
-- 
Noise proves nothing.  Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles
as if she laid an asteroid.
-- Mark Twain

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Daniel Sterling]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> Based on packet captures and customer experiences, that doesn't seem to be 
> the case.

Aye, you're right I'm sure. Thank you for the correction.

Where P2P does NOT come into play is:
1. on xbox
2. standard multiplayer
3. CoD games since at least 2013
4. in the US

That is, I haven't seen a non-dedicated-server host match in standard
multiplayer on xbox since CoD version 2013, and I've been looking.
That's just one datapoint from one user, but I haven't played on a
non-dedicated server since 2013 in xbox standard multiplayer.

P2P DOES come into play:
1. on PC
2. non-standard multiplayer (custom games) on any platform probably
3. maybe on xbox if you're not near any dedicated server. unsure on this

So yes it would seem to make sense for CoD to use ipv6 for those P2P
games. But then -- would they have to implement dual-stack for the
game on your PC? That seems even more complex than dual-stack on a
hosted server

-- Dan

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Josh Luthman]

>From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are
managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well
out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD.
not sure about other games.

Based on packet captures and customer experiences, that doesn't seem to be
the case.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:42 PM Daniel Sterling 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > Games want to go peer-to-peer.
>
> That was true up until about 2012.
>
> As Martijn Schmidt noted, Activison contracts out to multiple managed
> hosting companies to provide servers across the globe. If you launch
> any recent call of duty game and hit "multiplayer"  , your system will
> be looking for a managed server host to connect to.
>
> From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are
> managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well
> out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD.
> not sure about other games.
>
> > The real question IMHO is why are game console companies so stupid about
> IPv6?
>
> Just a guess, but I imagine since they can't count on users having v6,
> their hosts have to support v4 and they don't bother making them
> dual-stack.
>

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Daniel Sterling]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> Games want to go peer-to-peer.

That was true up until about 2012.

As Martijn Schmidt noted, Activison contracts out to multiple managed
hosting companies to provide servers across the globe. If you launch
any recent call of duty game and hit "multiplayer"  , your system will
be looking for a managed server host to connect to.

>From 2013 and on, all the call of duty games are
managed-server-host-only for general multiplayer. You have to go well
out of your way to do P2P FPS gaming recently -- at least with CoD.
not sure about other games.

> The real question IMHO is why are game console companies so stupid about IPv6?

Just a guess, but I imagine since they can't count on users having v6,
their hosts have to support v4 and they don't bother making them
dual-stack.

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

[Owen DeLong]

Your VoIP and Video systems are all getting paid rather well to provide 
Rendezvous hosts that are capable of forwarding ALL traffic and are not all 
that sensitive to the additional latency involved in doing so. From some 
perspectives, this is even considered desirable as it simplifies the process of 
so-called lawful intercept.

Games want to go peer-to-peer. The real question IMHO is why are game console 
companies so stupid about IPv6? Why don’t they push harder for IPv6 rollout and 
take full advantage of the lack of NAT and the ease with which peer-to-peer 
networking can be accomplished in IPv6 without hopping through a rendezvous 
host. Build the games to run native v6 speaking to capable consoles and use 
rendezvous hosts only where an IPv4 console needs to be reached.

Owen


> On Sep 27, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
> 
> This isn't rocket science.
> 
> Give each customer their own ipv4 IP address and turn on upnp, then they will 
> have open NAT to play their game and host. 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 12:50 PM Matt Hoppes  > wrote:
> I know the solution is always “IPv6”, but I’m curious if anyone here knows 
> why gaming consoles are so stupid when it comes to IPv4?  
> 
> We have VoIP and video systems that work fine through multiple layers of PAT 
> and NAT. Why do we still have gaming consoles, in 2020, that can’t find their 
> way through a PAT system with STUN or other methods?
> 
> It seems like this should be a simple solution, why are we still opening 
> ports or having systems that don’t work?

Re: Hulu Contact

[Mike Hammett]

http://thebrotherswisp.com/index.php/geo-and-vpn/ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: rob-li...@bpsnetworks.com 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 3:36:54 PM 
Subject: Hulu Contact 



Can someone from Hulu reach out to me? 
We are getting several customers complaining about receiving proxy/vpn errors 
from one of our subnets. 

Thanks! 
Robert Haas 
BPS Networks 
573-293-2638 

Re: [External] Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Sep/20 20:58, Hunter Fuller wrote:


Hey Mark, I am here. At 10364 we have 7 network people, 3 of whom have
an understanding of BGP deeper than surface level. We have 3 peers and
2 transit providers total.

When we go to implement external-facing BGP policy, the #1 concern is
"What are most people doing?". When we turn up a session with a peer
or provider (which we will be doing much more frequently in the near
future), it would be really wonderful if they could say "We support
RFC-style communities" and we would know what that means. And if
RFC exists then we will implement it when it's needed, just like
we do no-export. I don't spend all day on BGP and so I like to defer
to people who have learned from the "school of hard knocks" where
possible.

The last thing we want to do is to have a nonstandard or
difficult-to-understand policy or configuration, because there are
only 3 total people who could possibly understand it, and all of us
have many, many other job responsibilities so we basically have to
"page it back in" every time we go to look at it. The ideal situation
is that we can google "RFC-compliant config" and get something
that helps us get in line with best practices as smoothly as possible.


So if your peer or provider sent you a link to a web site where they 
published all of their support BGP communities, you'd find that onerous 
to deploy across them?


Mark.