Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Re: Item #3 there, the Google Docs spreadsheet with the IX costs... Scroll all the way down to the bottom in $/Mbps and you will find the SIX. Everyone in the Pacific NW should appreciate the excellent work that the SIX does. It's a nonprofit with transparency in its finances, a health cash

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 14/06/2016 20:49, Randy Bush wrote: > the O in nanog is operator, not sponsor, panderer, suck up, ... we're > spending millions for half debugged underperforming crap and we are > cornered by infrastructure providers (e.g. ixps) who run us over time > and again if it makes an extra penny. I

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

So far, except having to wait for remote reboots on several hundred sites, looking good. Voice, Data and and the few VZW 4G Network Extenders are processing LTE packets properly. Thanks Alex, for the insight and update (s). Sent via EnguiFi LTE Mobile On Jun 14, 2016 8:05 PM, "Alex Buie"

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

Issue is supposedly resolved. Please test :) On Jun 14, 2016 7:33 PM, "Kraig Beahn" wrote: > Thanks Alex and Allen, > > All of the devices tested on our side have Florida NPA/NXX's, including > data only devices, which is more than likely the reason we are seeing > issues

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

Thanks Alex and Allen, All of the devices tested on our side have Florida NPA/NXX's, including data only devices, which is more than likely the reason we are seeing issues elsewhere across the country. Seems to be reports elsewhere of similar issues, however is probably related to the same style

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

Large scale outage in FL, primarily affecting customers who have Advanced Calling (VoLTE) turned on and calling CDMA/PSTN destinations. However it appears there are many areas whose data connectivity is also affected. Will pass along any updates I can. Over 2k calls in the Tech Support queue

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

No problems in Newton, MA (Boston suburb). 43/5. Miles Fidelman On 6/14/16 6:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 25/8 in Troy. Phone works. I am using the "advanced calling" not sure what it is though. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

25/8 in Troy. Phone works. I am using the "advanced calling" not sure what it is though. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 14, 2016 6:45 PM, "Robert Webb" wrote: > Seeing no issues in WV. Speeds are

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

Seeing no issues in WV. Speeds are 50/10. On Jun 14, 2016 6:35 PM, "Kraig Beahn" wrote: > Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some > 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE, > however, seeing reports nationwide

Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE, however, seeing reports nationwide as well. --

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:57 , Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:47:18 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> NAT may not be security, yet it's the only thing securing billions of >>> people. >> >> Nope… NAT Can’t be done without stateful inspection. > >

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 14:05 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: >>> "If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive >>> an advance >>> draft so that their reps are prepared to speak

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

So I just watched the video of Dave’s talk. While my overall impression is that it’s 51 minutes of my life that I’d rather have back and I don’t agree with several of his conclusions, I don’t see anything inherently wrong or hurtful about it. I don’t think it painted anyone in a bad light

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: >> "If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive >> an advance >> draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about their >> intentions. " > > One of the least savory aspects

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

The world of networking is in itself decentralized. In the event a certain network starts behaving badly, other networks will take appropriate action by themselves if they see it as a problem. I see no need to become a nanny state over issues like this. If someone is being belligerent and harming

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:40:20PM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote: > Negative feedback, respectfully and objectively delivered, should be > embraced as opportunities to improve ourselves, our products and our > services, not shunned and silenced because it points out a flaw. 1. This. A hundred

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Matt Peterson wrote: > > This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not > reflect well for our community at large. I think that the data presented was interesting but the style of the presenter and tone could have been

Re: RPKI and offline routes

ASN 0 is used for this purpose. Look for the word "zero" in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6907 Thanks, Jakob. > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:53:45 -0500 (Central Sommerzeit) > From: Matthias Waehlisch > To: Theodore Baschak > Cc: NANOG Operators'

Re: Measuring the quality of Internet access

On 06/13/2016 09:11 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hi All, > > I know there are many people from many countries. > > Do you know something about mandatory measurements of Internet access > quality from country telecom regulators? If yes, could you please share > that information with me? austria does

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > the O in nanog is operator, not sponsor, panderer, suck up, ... Ogre? Drive slow, Paul

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Matt Peterson wrote: As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or suppliers)? For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific names mentioned (say in the case of a

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:57:40 -0400, "Ricky Beam" said: > I've seen many "IPv6 Capable" CPEs that apply ZERO security to IPv6 > traffic. IPv4 goes through NAT, so one gets the pseudo-security of not > being directly touchable from the internet. And a very big *PSEUDO* on that. It's amazing how

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:47:18 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: NAT may not be security, yet it's the only thing securing billions of people. Nope… NAT Can’t be done without stateful inspection. Negative. - 1:1 NAT (inside address A == outside address B) requires no state of any

Re: RPKI and offline routes

Hi, yes. In this context the discussion at IETF92 might be interesting: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-sidr (search for "Extemporaneous Presentation") Cheers matthias On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > On Mon 2016-Jun-13 17:53:45 -0500, Matthias

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 6/14/16 1:30 PM, Matt Peterson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: >> Matt is being coy, for some reason. He didn't like Dave Temkin's talk about >> IXP costs. I listened very carefully and did not hear any specific members >> or people targeted

Re: Webmail / IMAPS software for end-user clients in 2016

Zimbra is a full featured groupware server. I don't think you can just use the webmail part with existing IMAP server. So it doesn't fulfill requirements stated by initial poster. > Le 13 juin 2016 à 21:24, Greg Sowell a écrit : > > +1 for Zimbra > >> On Sun, Jun 12,

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> A possible PC revision could have been 1) add more flavor of dominate > US IXP's (of all organization structures) - as that geographical focus > makes more sense for NANOG 2) don't list specific organizations by > name, but instead just list their organization structure and a random >

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Matt, I find it ironic that someone with such an objection to personal attacks would throw out one like this: *"I'm sorry Dan, but this sort of "old boys network" attitude has gone on for way too long in NANOG. As a board member, it would be nice to see a commitment to improving this situation.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, William Herrin wrote: Anyway, not a fan of dancing on eggshells. If something deserves to be said, it should be said. If we can't take a little honesty, we're in the wrong line of work. Yes! Though the "Hey that was negative! Don't say negative things about me!"

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the > day we decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the > end of my involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the case for > many others. thanks for speaking up with a clear voice randy, who generally does not

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: > > > I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the day we > decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the end of my > involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the case for many

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 6/14/16 12:18 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: > I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the day we > decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the end of my > involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the case for many others. > > Matt is being coy, for some

Appeals court upholds Network Neutrality rules

Presented without comment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/14/the-fcc-just-won-a-sweeping-victory-on-net-neutrality-in-federal-court/ Seems topical to NANOG audience. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: > > John, > > We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance > > If you notice similarities - they are intentional. > If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a >

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Were they truly targeted in a hurtful manner, or just reprimanded for doing something stupid? On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Matt Peterson wrote: > This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not > reflect well for our community at large.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

"If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive an advance draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about their intentions. " One of the least savory aspects of the technical press and industry analyst worlds is something called pre-pub review. That's

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: >> On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson wrote: >>> As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

John, We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance If you notice similarities - they are intentional. If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a frank exchange of views between participants. We have no desire to stifle that. Dan On

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

I'd suggest that this is not an operation discussion and should be moved to the NANOG Membership list. I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the day we decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the end of my involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Ca By > wrote: Harassment policy is a good idea https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html Similar approach would be an explicit statement of expectations of participants -

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert > wrote: > > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson > wrote: > > > >> This week at NANOG67, a

Re: RPKI and offline routes

On Mon 2016-Jun-13 17:53:45 -0500, Matthias Waehlisch wrote: Hi, the creation of a ROA does not require the announcement of the prefix. Creation of a ROA, prefix announcement, and validation of the prefix are decoupled. If you are the legitimate resource holder

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson wrote: > >> This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not >> reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or >>

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson wrote: This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread), specific

NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread), specific members of the community (some of which are sponsors) were clearly targeted in a

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On 08/06/2016 18:17, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Get your own /48 and advertise to HE Tunnel via BGP. Problem solved. >> >> Even though that sounds like an awesome idea it does not seem trivial to >> me to obtain your own /48. > > It’s trivial in the ARIN region. Other regions are YMMV. I thought you

Re: Webmail / IMAPS software for end-user clients in 2016

+1 for Zimbra On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jim Lucas wrote: > June 8 2016 6:08 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" wrote: > > If you had to put up a public facing webmail interface for people to use, > > and maintain it for the foreseeable future (5-6 years), what

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On 08/06/2016 18:23, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote: > Well there is one good thing that might come out of this if you're a > tunnel user.. the tunnels can have even more bandwidth now, with all the > Netflix traffic moving off them. I have no special visibility into how > (over)loaded they are, just