Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 1/29/2013 4:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. This, Jean-Francois, is the assertion I hear relatively frequently. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Cheers, -- jra If there is competition offering next-gen type services, that they can't reasonably or more easily offer via their existing HFC plant, then I would expect they'd start using the muni network. I think the biggest factor though, would be cost. If using the muni network is cheaper than their own HFC plant, they may actually phase out their HFC network over time. --John
Re: Verizon FIOS troubleshooting
On 9/25/2012 4:11 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: All, Recently began seeing things like this to the default GW from inside and outside the FIOS network. Called tech support but all they could do was put a ticket in for the NetEng team. http://pastie.org/4800421 http://www.bsd-unix.net/smokeping/smokeping.cgi?target=people.bryan The pings jumping from an avg of 3ms to 80 is what gets me. Also my downloading / uploading on my segment doesn't seem to affect the latency jumps on the default GW either way (when testing from my COLO). Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated! Most likely Verizon has their routers configured to rate limit, or reduce priority to replying to pings directed at them. --John
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/16/2012 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus our worries on the big guys like ATT going IPv6 (which I'm sure but they're slow), but these small operators are a much bigger problem. http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722 http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?t=53779 ~Seth Wow... my brain hurts after reading that. The saddest part is, there are folks with IPv6 allocations that simply refuse to implement dual stack. --John
Re: APIs for domain registration and management
On 9/12/2012 5:18 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Hi Folks, I expect folks on NANOG would know: Are there any domain registrars who provide APIs for managing domains and/or DNS records? It's kind of a pain managing large numbers of domains via klunky web interfaces. It sure would be nice to tie registry accounts into equipment inventory management systems. Thanks, Miles Fidelman OpenSRS and Enom both have APIs. --John
Re: Verizon's New Repair Method: Plastic Garbage Bags
On 8/20/2012 12:09 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: For a while we have had a customer with some lines which go down every time it rains. We put in the trouble ticket, a couple of days later Verizon says the issue is resolved...until the next time it rains. The customer sent us some pictures today of the pole outside their office. The repair appears to be wrapping some plastic bags around something up on the pole. Here is link to the pictures the customer sent us, in case anyone in the mood for a good scare. http://rock.nyigc.net/verizon/ I see Verizon is continuing to do quality work. Reminds me of some work they did by my parent's house once. Instead of splicing and burying a cable after fixing it, they just left it laying out in the open. But the tech did take the time to put bags over the splice cases he used.
Re: Dear Linkedin,
A merchant can offer a cash discount. --John On 6/10/2012 11:16 AM, Barry Shein wrote: I was under the impression (I should dig out my contract) that merchant contracts also forbid charging more for a charge than for cash or conversely discount for cash! but I see so many violations of that particularly at gas stations I wonder if that's negotiable in the contract. I remember my father buying a car and pulling out a credit card asking if they accepted them? The dealer said sure no problem so he said fine then take another 3% (whatever) off I'll pay cash/check.
Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
In my experience Cogent is fine when used in a BGP mix. When we used them, our service was quite reliable. Routing was funky at times, but we never had packet loss. --John On 5/14/2012 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question... I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business. Thanks, Jason
Re: Network Storage
In that case, just keep adding disks to you capture system, or use a NAS to do it. --John On 4/12/2012 2:16 PM, Maverick wrote: Thank you very much for your suggestions. 1) My goal is to store the traffic may be fore ever, and analyze it in the future for security related incidents detected by ids/ips. 2) I am storing just header and initial few bytes but still it gets filled up quite quickly. 3) Netflow approach is nice but I also want to have traces available for reasons mentioned in 1). 4) Are there any issues having an external storage as a solution for this problem. Best, Ali On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Michael J McCafferty m...@m5computersecurity.com wrote: Ali, Do you need to capture the whole packet, including the payload? You will save a lot of space by just capturing the headers. For example, tcpdump doesn't capture the whole packet by default anyway. You may not be able to capture at line rate anyway depending on what you are using to capture with (drivers, libraries, software, etc). See the -s option in tcpdump man page for info. Good luck, Mike On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 16:25 -0400, Maverick wrote: Hello Everyone, Can you please comment on what is best solution for storing network traffic. We have been graciously granted access by our network administrator to capture traffic but the one Tera byte disk space is no match with the data that we are seeing, so it fills up quickly. We can't get additional space on the server itself so I am looking for some external solutions. Can you please suggest something that would be best for Gbps speeds . Best, Ali -- Michael J. McCafferty CEO M5 Hosting http://www.m5hosting.com Like us on Facebook for updates and photos: https://www.facebook.com/m5hosting
Re: Network Storage
On 4/12/2012 2:34 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:18:30 -0700, John T. Yocum said: In that case, just keep adding disks to you capture system, or use a NAS to do it. On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:43:49 -0700, Joel jaeggli said: 1TB is 2.276 hours at 1Gb/s If he's got a gigabit of traffic, he's going to be adding another shelf of 12 1T drives to that NAS - every day. If he gets the high-density shelves with 60 drives, he's only adding one a week. He's going to have to work smarter, not harder. He did indicate he's only storing the headers and a few bytes, not the full payload. --John
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating. If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer. regards, Carlos On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ? Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision. Regards, -drc That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain. --John
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
On 3/22/2012 3:49 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM,valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said: Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) So where are these subsidies going? I live in rural BFE where most of my neighbors are still dialing in, and the local providers have no $$ incentive to build out here. Greg I imagine a lot goes into the general maintenance of rural systems. I recall 12 - 15 years ago, on the local news when it was announced a small town got its first phone line. Cost to GTE at the time was said to be 40K to do it, as the town was 20+ miles from the nearest anything. I've lived in an area where Verizon had to maintain 10 miles of overhead just for 1 SLC that serves 20 homes. Not that the service was any good but, I'm sure the cost was far higher than what the customers were paying. --John
Re: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber
On 3/21/2012 8:44 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Hey All, I have a site in Alabama that could really use some additional diversity, but apparently ATT fiber is the only game in town. If anybody has any options, such as fixed wireless in the 10-50mbs, please reply to me, off-list. Best, Joe Depending on location, perhaps Charter. They do offer transport service in some areas they service. --John
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
On 3/21/2012 12:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Eric Wielingewiel...@nyigc.com Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out. TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all* on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that location; VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical facilities in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that, or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install? Cause either of those ought to violate the rules. So if Verizon is on the hook to support the CLEC's, why are they pulling the local loop? I'm sure it isn't free to pull it and certainly not to reinstall it, so what might be their motivation? Mike VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've disconnected their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS service which ILECs provide, is basically copper service. So once the copper is gone, they are no longer in the heavily regulated POTS business. The result being, they can do whatever they want. --John
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
On 3/21/2012 1:56 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: William Herrinbill@her The hinky part is that the FCC decided that copper pairs are an unbundled element but PONS wavelengths and Coaxial cable frequency channels are not. So, Verizon doesn't have to share access to FIOS and Comcast doesn't have to share access to the coax. So why is it, then, that Vision Cable-Bright House-Advance/Newhouse Cable Partnership (which is what the payroll checks have said since about 1979) *is* required to provide competitive cablemodem access on their HFC plant? (I can get RoadRunner, their own brand, or Earthlink, or the local provider Internet Junction...) Cheers, -- jra That's probably a local requirement. It's not a Federal requirement. Though, some cable companies do provide wholesale services even when not required. Look at ATT and others trying to get state-wide franchise agreements. They are trying to avoid having smaller areas tell them what to do, if they want to serve an area. --John
Re: Possible explanations for a large hop in latency
When I asked ATT about the sudden latency jump I see in traceroutes, they told me it was due to how their MPLS network is setup. --John Frank Bulk wrote: Our upstream provider has a connection to ATT (12.88.71.13) where I relatively consistently measure with a RTT of 15 msec, but the next hop (12.122.112.22) comes in with a RTT of 85 msec. Unless ATT is sending that traffic over a cable modem or to Europe and back, I can't see a reason why there is a consistent ~70 msec jump in RTT. Hops farther along the route are just a few msec more each hop, so it doesn't appear that 12.122.112.22 has some kind of ICMP rate-limiting. Is this a real performance issue, or is there some logical explanation? Frank
Re: Possible explanations for a large hop in latency
The explanation I got, was that the latency seen at the first hop was actually a reply from the last hop in the path across their MPLS network. Hence, all the following hops had very similar latency. Personally, I thought it was rather strange for them to do that. And, I've never seen that occur on any other network. Perhaps someone from ATT would like to chime in. --John Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Did that satisfy you? I guess with MPLS they could tag the traffic and send it around the country twice and I wouldn't see it at L3. Frank -Original Message- From: John T. Yocum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Possible explanations for a large hop in latency When I asked ATT about the sudden latency jump I see in traceroutes, they told me it was due to how their MPLS network is setup. --John Frank Bulk wrote: Our upstream provider has a connection to ATT (12.88.71.13) where I relatively consistently measure with a RTT of 15 msec, but the next hop (12.122.112.22) comes in with a RTT of 85 msec. Unless ATT is sending that traffic over a cable modem or to Europe and back, I can't see a reason why there is a consistent ~70 msec jump in RTT. Hops farther along the route are just a few msec more each hop, so it doesn't appear that 12.122.112.22 has some kind of ICMP rate-limiting. Is this a real performance issue, or is there some logical explanation? Frank
