Re: AT&T Business Center completely broken for months - is it the norm?

[Daniel Marks via NANOG]

This has been the case with most AT&T systems I’ve had to use in the past 5 
years, FirstNet is even worse. As others suggested in trying different 
browsers, I found that a lot of (especially older) corporate firewalls just 
seem to hate AT&T websites and flipping on a VPN to  tends to 
resolve most of my issues.

-Dan

> On Oct 9, 2023, at 23:41, Mirai Azayaka  wrote:
> 
> Hi NANOG,
> 
> Maybe this topic is better suited for the complaint department of AT&T
> but I just want to confirm if it's just me or it's just AT&T...
> 
> So I'm a new customer of AT&T's DIA network and I haven't been able to
> make a payment since day one. (And it has been several months.) Just
> wondering if a completely broken internal billing system is normal...
> I only have limited experience with Hurricane Electric and Equinix
> before. Wondering if Verizon or Comcast is also broken like AT&T. Here
> are the issues I had with their system:
> - Clicking random links around the portal will give you HTTP 400
> errors, sometimes.
> - I'm unable to add payment methods even after following the payment
> tutorial exactly. The portal consistently gives HTTP 413 errors.
> - Live chat doesn't work at all. Clicking the button returns HTTP 404
> in my debugging console.
> - Extremely slow for some tasks which may result in a HTTP 408.
> 
> The system feels like a collection of HTTP error codes... How can it
> be so broken? Are other ISP's internal billing systems broken like
> this? Looking for anecdotes / experiences.
> 
> Azayaka

Re: AT&T Business Center completely broken for months - is it the norm?

[Mel Beckman]

Have you tried a different browser? Chrome works for me. Edge and Firefox don’t.

 -mel beckman

> On Oct 9, 2023, at 8:41 PM, Mirai Azayaka  wrote:
> 
> Hi NANOG,
> 
> Maybe this topic is better suited for the complaint department of AT&T
> but I just want to confirm if it's just me or it's just AT&T...
> 
> So I'm a new customer of AT&T's DIA network and I haven't been able to
> make a payment since day one. (And it has been several months.) Just
> wondering if a completely broken internal billing system is normal...
> I only have limited experience with Hurricane Electric and Equinix
> before. Wondering if Verizon or Comcast is also broken like AT&T. Here
> are the issues I had with their system:
> - Clicking random links around the portal will give you HTTP 400
> errors, sometimes.
> - I'm unable to add payment methods even after following the payment
> tutorial exactly. The portal consistently gives HTTP 413 errors.
> - Live chat doesn't work at all. Clicking the button returns HTTP 404
> in my debugging console.
> - Extremely slow for some tasks which may result in a HTTP 408.
> 
> The system feels like a collection of HTTP error codes... How can it
> be so broken? Are other ISP's internal billing systems broken like
> this? Looking for anecdotes / experiences.
> 
> Azayaka

AT&T Business Center completely broken for months - is it the norm?

[Mirai Azayaka]

Hi NANOG,

Maybe this topic is better suited for the complaint department of AT&T
but I just want to confirm if it's just me or it's just AT&T...

So I'm a new customer of AT&T's DIA network and I haven't been able to
make a payment since day one. (And it has been several months.) Just
wondering if a completely broken internal billing system is normal...
I only have limited experience with Hurricane Electric and Equinix
before. Wondering if Verizon or Comcast is also broken like AT&T. Here
are the issues I had with their system:
- Clicking random links around the portal will give you HTTP 400
errors, sometimes.
- I'm unable to add payment methods even after following the payment
tutorial exactly. The portal consistently gives HTTP 413 errors.
- Live chat doesn't work at all. Clicking the button returns HTTP 404
in my debugging console.
- Extremely slow for some tasks which may result in a HTTP 408.

The system feels like a collection of HTTP error codes... How can it
be so broken? Are other ISP's internal billing systems broken like
this? Looking for anecdotes / experiences.

Azayaka

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Geoff Huston]

> On 10 Oct 2023, at 5:35 am, Delong.com  wrote:
> 
>> Now I’m trying to understand what your grimmer story for IPv4 might be here 
>> Owen. Since 2005 the number of IPv4 FIB entries per origin AS has increased 
>> fropm 8 to 12 in the past 20 years - or a 50% increase. Over ther same 
>> period the number of IPv6  prefix advertisements per origin AS has increased 
>> from 1.5 to 6, or a fourfold increase. If anything, the IPv6 story appears 
>> to me to be a far greater cause for concern, but you may have a different 
>> interpretation of this data.
> 
> I admit I’m surprised that IPv6 has gotten to an average of 6, but it would 
> be interesting to know why that is. Honestly, I expected it would end up 
> closer to 4. I wonder how much of that is PI stub networks being originated 
> by upstream transit networks. I also wonder to what extent the “average” 
> might be misleading here. Is it a few ASs with large numbers of prefixes and 
> mostly 1-2 prefixes per AS or is the average representative?
> 
> I know that in IPv4, for example, there are several ASs originating MANY 
> prefixes and lots of smaller ASs originating <4 prefixes.
> 
> My grimmer picture for IPv4 is about the intrinsic pressure to deaggregate 
> that comes from the ever finer splitting of blocks in the transfer market and 
> the ever finer grained dense packing of hosts into prefixes that is forced 
> from address scarcity. Those pressures don’t (or at least shouldn’t) exist 
> for IPv6.
> 


The questions you ask Owen are obviously answerable by anyone with access to a 
BGP routing table dump (which is pretty much anyone!).

BGP is many things - it is a topology maintenance protocol, but its a traffic 
engineering protocol and an attack mitigation protocol. In the latter two cases 
advertising more specifics play a crucial role. The pressure to slice and dice 
in IPv4 is a mix of reachability in a space where address availability is under 
acute pressure, and TE and DOS mitigation. The pressures on IPv6 are 
predominately from the latter two categories. I suspect that as IPv6 becomes a 
larger part of the traffic mix (and inexorably that appears to be happening) 
then the TE and DOS issues become more of an operational concern, hence rising 
more specifics in IPv6. 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Matthew Petach]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 11:38 AM Delong.com via NANOG 
wrote:

> [...]
>
> My grimmer picture for IPv4 is about the intrinsic pressure to deaggregate
> that comes from the ever finer splitting of blocks in the transfer market
> and the ever finer grained dense packing of hosts into prefixes that is
> forced from address scarcity. Those pressures don’t (or at least shouldn’t)
> exist for IPv6.
>

Well, it's also time to recognize and talk about the elephant in the room.

We know we can have an IPv4-only internet, we've been doing it for decades.

Our experiments thus far at an IPv6-only Internet have largely been (well,
honestly, *compeletely*) unsuccessful.  In order to exist on the Internet
today, you *must* have some IPv4 presence.  The reverse is not true; you
can exist on the Internet with no IPv6 resources.

As a result, as you noted, the pressure to split IPv4 ever-smaller so that
everyone gets a tiny piece of that essential pie is nearly infinitely
greater than it is for IPv6.

As a community, we have failed, because we never acknowledged and addressed
the need for backward compatibility between IPv6 and IPv4, and instead
counted on magic handwaving about tipping points and transition dates where
suddenly there would be "enough" IPv6-connected resources that new networks
wouldn't *need* IPv4 address space any more.

In doing so, we have sown the seeds of our own future pain and suffering.
By allowing IPv6 to be defined and established as an incompatible network
protocol to IPv4, we ensured that IPv4's future was assured.
*Every* transition mechanism we have for networks today relies on having
*some* amount of IPv4 address space for the translation gateway devices,
which will continue to drive an ever-increasing demand for smaller and
smaller chunks of IPv4 address space to be parceled out to every new
network that wants to join the Internet.

The only alternative is that web-scale companies like Amazon and Google
stand up swaths of IPv6-to-IPv4 translation gateway boxes, and provide
6-to-4 bidirectional translation services, with some clever marketing
person figuring out how to make money reliably from the service.

At that point, new entrants could conceivably get on board the Internet
with only IPv6 resources, with no need to scrabble for a chunk of
ever-decreasing IPv4 space to perform the necessary gateway translation for
their customers.

Unfortunately, because it's not just a mapping problem but an actual
packet-level incompatibility, the companies providing the magical
bidirectional translation service are going to be in the pathway for the
entire bitstream, making it a bandwidth-intensive product to deploy.  :(

On the plus side, they'd have the best view into everyone's traffic one
could ever hope for.  Forget just seeing DNS queries--you'd have visibility
into *everything* the users were doing, no matter how tiny and mundane it
might be.  Imagine the data mining potential!!

If I were younger, stupider, and much, much, MUCH richer, I might start a
company to do just that...

Matt

Re: Low to Mid Range DWDM Platforms

[Thomas Croghan]

I did some work with their passive DWDM equipment. Everything was within spec 
and seemed to work fine for the year I was there after we deployed it.

Actually being honest, we did all our light loss math based on FS's specs and 
we ended up having to use attenuators in one instance. So be certain to check 
the certification sheets when you get your product.

On Oct 9, 2023 09:13, michael brooks - ESC  wrote:
>On the same topic, anyone have experience with the stuff from 
>fs.com?

We use their patch cables, both SM and MM. Solid product, and good to work with 
(we have had them build custom-length cables).



michael brooks
Sr. Network Engineer
Adams 12 Five Star Schools
michael.bro...@adams12.org

"flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss"



On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:04 AM David Bass 
mailto:davidbass...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On the same topic, anyone have experience with the stuff from 
fs.com?




This is a staff email account managed by Adams 12 Five Star Schools.  This 
email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this email in error please notify the sender.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Delong.com via NANOG]

> On Oct 5, 2023, at 15:51, Geoff Huston  wrote:
> 
>> On 6 Oct 2023, at 6:13 am, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> 
>> Ratio of FIB to RIB is only part of the equation.
>> 
>> IPv6 is NOT under the disaggregation pressure that IPv4 is under because 
>> there is no pressure (other than perhaps scarcity mentality from those that 
>> don’t properly understand IPv6) to dense-pack IPv6 assignments or undersize 
>> IPv6 allocations.
>> 
>> Look at the difference in prefixes per ASN across the two tables and that 
>> tells a much grimmer story for IPv4 in terms of RIB growth vs. IPv6.
> 
> 
> hmm - IPv4 is at [1], IPv6 is at [2]
> 
> Now I’m trying to understand what your grimmer story for IPv4 might be here 
> Owen. Since 2005 the number of IPv4 FIB entries per origin AS has increased 
> fropm 8 to 12 in the past 20 years - or a 50% increase. Over ther same period 
> the number of IPv6  prefix advertisements per origin AS has increased from 
> 1.5 to 6, or a fourfold increase. If anything, the IPv6 story appears to me 
> to be a far greater cause for concern, but you may have a different 
> interpretation of this data.

I admit I’m surprised that IPv6 has gotten to an average of 6, but it would be 
interesting to know why that is. Honestly, I expected it would end up closer to 
4. I wonder how much of that is PI stub networks being originated by upstream 
transit networks. I also wonder to what extent the “average” might be 
misleading here. Is it a few ASs with large numbers of prefixes and mostly 1-2 
prefixes per AS or is the average representative?

I know that in IPv4, for example, there are several ASs originating MANY 
prefixes and lots of smaller ASs originating <4 prefixes.

My grimmer picture for IPv4 is about the intrinsic pressure to deaggregate that 
comes from the ever finer splitting of blocks in the transfer market and the 
ever finer grained dense packing of hosts into prefixes that is forced from 
address scarcity. Those pressures don’t (or at least shouldn’t) exist for IPv6.

YMMV

Owen

Re: Low to Mid Range DWDM Platforms

[michael brooks - ESC]

>On the same topic, anyone have experience with the stuff from fs.com

?

We use their patch cables, both SM and MM. Solid product, and good to work
with (we have had them build custom-length cables).



michael brooks
Sr. Network Engineer
Adams 12 Five Star Schools
michael.bro...@adams12.org

"flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss"



On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:04 AM David Bass  wrote:

> On the same topic, anyone have experience with the stuff from fs.com
> 
> ?
>
>
>>>
>>>

-- 
This is a staff email account managed by Adams 12 Five Star Schools.  This 
email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.