ACX7100 Woes - Operator Outreach -

[Edwin Mallette]

In attempting to operationalize the ACX7100 I have run into quite a few
challenges with the platform once I stray outside of traditional routing
and switching.  The EVPN instances seem to have quite a few caveats and
things like CFM and RFC2544 traffic generation.  Many of the show commands
don't seem to work, many of the counters either don't work or update slowly
(like I run the command to show CFM messages and it says it sent 100 then I
run it again a couple seconds later and it says 1 sent then a couple
seconds later it says 100 sent) this with a periodicity of 1 message
per second.

Oh and the latest is that our original OEM QSFPs just disappear.  As in
they not only stop working but the chassis no longer sees them.  I guess
I'm just reaching out to see if I'm all alone in my struggles...

Warm Regards and happy Monday after Thanksgiving,

Ed

Re: ICANN

[Edwin Mallette]

To the OP… I hear ICANN also has a no trolls policy.  I’m sure you can find 
that if you look hard enough.

Your best bet is to go find the nearest bridge.l and hang out under it.  Don’t 
worry - they’ll find you.

Ed

PS - normally I too have a no trolls policy but I couldn’t resist.

From: NANOG  on behalf of 
b...@theworld.com 
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 5:27:06 PM
To: Keith Medcalf 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: ICANN


You'd probably be 99.999% more successful in improving the state of
humanity by being more specific about what you are referring to.

Put another way you've probably reached "ICANN" by posting here, or as
well as you're likely to by any other means you're imagining.

On July 8, 2022 at 09:21 kmedc...@dessus.com (Keith Medcalf) wrote:
 >
 > Does anyone have contact information (or address for service of legal
 > documents) for ICANN?  There web site does not appear to contain contact
 > information.
 >
 > ICANN apparently promulgates a policy which requires clickage on spam
 > links in e-mail.  I intend to sue them for trillions of dollars for this
 > policy.
 >
 >
 > --
 > (CAUTION) You are advised that if you attack my person or property, you
 > will be put down in accordance with the provisions of section 34 & 35 of
 > the Criminal Code respectively.  If you are brandishing (or in
 > possession) of a weapon then lethal force will be applied to your person
 > in accordance with the law.  This means that your misadventures may end
 > in your death.  Consider yourself cautioned and govern your actions
 > appropriately.
 >
 >
 >
 >

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: 100GbE beyond 40km

[Edwin Mallette]

I just bite the bullet and use 3rd party optics.  It’s easier and once  you 
make the switch, lower cost. 

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 25, 2021, at 12:29 AM, Joe Freeman  wrote:
> 
> 
> Open Line Systems can get you to 80K with a 100G DWDM Optic (PAM4) -
> 
> I've used a lot of SmartOptics DCP-M40 shelves for this purpose. They also 
> have transponders that allow you to go from a QSFP28 to CFP to do coherent 
> 100G out to 120Km using the DCP-M40, without a need for regen or extra amps 
> in line.
> 
> The DCP-M40 is a 1RU box. It looks like a deep 40ch DWDM filter but includes 
> a VAO, EDFA amp, and a WSS I think. 
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:40 PM Randy Carpenter  wrote:
>> 
>> How is everyone accomplishing 100GbE at farther than 40km distances?
>> 
>> Juniper is saying it can't be done with anything they offer, except for a 
>> single CFP-based line card that is EOL.
>> 
>> There are QSFP "ZR" modules from third parties, but I am hesitant to try 
>> those without there being an equivalent official part.
>> 
>> 
>> The application is an ISP upgrading from Nx10G, where one of their fiber 
>> paths is ~35km and the other is ~60km.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> thanks,
>> -Randy

Re: Juniper vMX evaluation - how?

[Edwin Mallette]

I downloaded it in the past and can¹t remember having any issues
downloading itŠ Getting it to work in my environment was a bit more
challenging, however.  I do have a Juniper login which is required.  I
also just verified that I can download application package:

vMX 

MD5 SHA1 
15.1F4
tgz
1,561,459,359
28 Dec 2015


You need to be logged in to download the vMX archive as well as the eval
license key.  Both I was able to get once logged in.

Cheers,

Ed


On 4/13/16, 5:54 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Bruce Simpson"
 wrote:

>Pardon if this is off-topic -- but this is really beginning to wind me up.
>
>So, http://www.juniper.net/us/en/dm/free-vmx-trial/ shows that Juniper
>Networks vMX is available for a 60-day evaluation. This requires filling
>out a form to create an account on juniper.net.
>
>I don't currently have such a login. $CLIENT filled out such a form well
>over a month ago, and never heard anything back. Normally, I'd expect to
>be able to download as soon as an account is approved. Meanwhile, we get
>preoccupied with other tasks.
>
>Is some special magic required to acquire an evaluation copy? The 60 day
>trial license is directly downloadable from the above link, but the
>tarball is not. $CLIENT was just referred to it by $RESELLER.

Re: Cable Operator List

[Edwin Mallette]

Hi Colton,

For what it sounds like you’re really looking for, a remote MAC-PHY (or
pre remote MAC-PHY, ala mini CMTS) would probably be the good fit for your
application.  This is certainly not an endorsement, as we haven’t used any
remote MAC-PHY devices today.

There are a couple players pouring money into products that haven’t really
been mentioned yet...
1) Huawei - which initially brought a mini CMTS to market (D3.0, 16x4.)
Some C-DOCSIS stuff, so may be feature poor but it doesn’t sound like you
really need the boatload of features that are in a classic full-size CMTS
anyway.  Not sure what’s going on with their D3.1 remote MAC-PHY general
availability is either.
2) Gainspeed - D3.0/D3.1 product (not sure about where the generally
availability of their product lines are) but if you happen to be a Juniper
customer, they partner with Gainspeed so it can be easy to get engaged
with them.

Ed

On 2/2/16, 11:03 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Scott Helms"
 wrote:

>Colton,
>
>You're only going to find very small, old, or not certified (usually still
>very small) CMTSs that only do layer 2.  All of the major vendors are
>doing
>layer 3 because we've found out over time that not doing it is more
>problematic.  Having said that, if you're looking for a more ONT/DSLAM
>type
>of install there is a new type of CMTSs that look at lot like traditional
>telco DLC/BLC deployments.
>
>https://intx15.ncta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/17-Remote-PHY.pdf
>
>The remote PHY+MAC boxes are basically mini-CMTSs and they typically rely
>on something upstream handling layer 3.  The remote PHY boxes are
>different
>as they don't even do a complete layer 2 and instead forward DOCSIS frames
>back to a centralized CMTS/CCAP.
>
>
>
>Scott Helms
>Chief Technology Officer
>ZCorum
>(678) 507-5000
>
>http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Colton Conor 
>wrote:
>
>> Graham,
>>
>> What is DSG? Yes, I am really looking for a CMTS to perform layer 2
>>just as
>> our DSLAMs and GPON do today. All layer 3 will be upstream. I would
>>want to
>> handle DHCP upstream, but have the CMTS insert Option 82 if that is a
>> feature. Not sure what specific CMTS stuff you need.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Graham Johnston
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Colton,
>> >
>> > It really depends on what features you are after.  I've demo'd one of
>>the
>> > small 1/2RU C-DOCSIS CMTSs, and they certainly work.  For us though it
>> was
>> > a non-starter as we needed support for DSG and it didn't have it.  If
>>all
>> > you are after is basic internet connectivity there is Pico Digital,
>> Vecima,
>> > Sumavision, as well as others.  Many of the C-DOCSIS CMTSs seem either
>> only
>> > support, or are more often meant to support layer 2 operations where
>>the
>> > routing happens upstream from the CMTS.
>> >
>> > Graham Johnston
>> > Network Planner
>> > Westman Communications Group
>> > 204.717.2829
>> > johnst...@westmancom.com
>> > think green; don't print this email.
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:00 AM
>> > To: Daniel Corbe
>> > Cc: NANOG
>> > Subject: Re: Cable Operator List
>> >
>> > Well, maybe NANOG's not a bad place for this post then! I would like
>>to
>> > know more about the data-only side of CMTS systems, and who the main
>> > vendors are.
>> >
>> > We have MDU properties where there is either old inside CAT3 phone
>>wire,
>> or
>> > coaxial cable. We have looked and are very familiar with the multiple
>> > technologies that work over phone lines namely VDSL2 and G.FAST.
>>However,
>> > using the coaxial cable seems to be a much better solution than using
>>the
>> > phone wires.
>> >
>> > So I am looking for compacts, low cost CMTS systems. Based on the
>>specs,
>> I
>> > am looking for something at least DOCSIS 3.0 capable, with at least
>>16X4
>> > output. Something with the ability to upgrade to software upgrade to
>> DOCSIS
>> > 3.1 would be nice, but I doubt that would be a low cost solution.
>> >
>> > Whats out there for small operators that don't want a large chassis
>>based
>> > system to feed an entire town with.
>> >
>> > So far I have found the
>> > http://picodigital.com/product-details.php?ID=miniCMTS200a which seems
>> to
>> > retail for under $5000.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Daniel Corbe 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > On Feb 2, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Colton Conor 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Are there any mailing lists out there dedicated for cable/MSO type
>> > > > operators?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm curious about this too.
>> > >
>> > > I’m not a cable operator (in that I haven’t successfully registered
>> for a
>> > > cable franchise yet) but I 

Re: Bright House IMAP highwater warning real?

[Edwin Mallette]

Yeah, so not a Bright House Networks email administrator but I am
affiliated with Bright House Networks.  I have forwarded the thread to our
email administration team.

Cheers!

Ed

On 8/2/15, 3:53 PM, NANOG on behalf of Jay Ashworth
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of j...@baylink.com wrote:

I think the body text of the message should identify it as coming from
the Bright House email system? I think it should be written in standard
USAdian English, which that is decidedly not.

Or perhaps the problem is that that subject line was supposed to be
parameterized, and the number of bytes is missing for some reason. But in
any event that is a common message to spoof, and the more bits of
identity that are in it the harder it is to do so. That message format
has almost zero bit of provider-identifiable data.


Your Bright House Networks IMAP email storage for u...@domain.com is at
490MB, approaching your quota of 500MB.

IMAP email permits you to access all your mail folders by storing them on
the mail server, but because of this, all mail in your folders
contributes to your storage limit.

You can delete messages to reduce your storage, or move them to your PC.
If you delete them, or have already deleted them, you usually must
'compact' each folder to reclaim the extra space.

Alternatively, you can contact Customer Care to see about having your
quota increased.


Cheers,
-- jra

On August 2, 2015 3:44:35 PM EDT, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
What do you think their message should say?  We struggled over this,
too, and settled on some soft language, included information on how to
purchase more storage, and also provided our email address and phone
numbers.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Ashworth
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 1:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Bright House IMAP highwater warning real?

Any brighthouse email admins on the list? My sister got the following
high water warning message, with the included headers which, since they
appear to include no Received: headers, look like they actually came
from brighthouse's email cluster.

If this is a real Bright House warning message, somebody should be
flogged. Teaching people which messages is to believe is hard enough...

Cheers,
-- jra


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Fwd: ATTENTION: High Water Mark Notification, bytes in the
mailbox!

I lied. The header to yours - which I finally found - is nice and long.
 the header on this one is

Return-Path: 
From: admin
Subject: ATTENTION: High Water Mark Notification, bytes in the mailbox!
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 06:22:44 +
Message-ID: e31468ce-38de-11e5-b0a6-17507733086b

-Original Message-
From: admin
Sent: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 2:22 AM
Subject: ATTENTION: High Water Mark Notification, bytes in the
mailbox!

Your mailbox is over the high water mark.
Please delete some messages from your mailbox.
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Voip encryption

[Edwin Mallette]

Hi Simon,

My understanding is that since your 3rd party VPLS instance is a private
³MPLS² network, there is no requirement for application-level encryption.
However if you wanted to encrypt VOIP that carries credit card data, some
PBX/handsets offer application-level media encryption if that¹s the
problem you want to solve to minimize your PCI scope.

Cheers!

Ed

On 4/9/15, 6:21 AM, Simon Brilus sbri...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

Hi - I have a PCIDSs requirement to encrypt VoIP over a 3rd party VPLS
network. Has anyone dealt with this. I'd really not use VPN's over the
VPLS
so am looking at hardware WAN encrypters.

 

Any guidance appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Simon