Re: UK, NL, & Asia LTE Providers for Opengear Console Servers

I’ve used them in both cellular and non-cellular capacities and been pleased with them. AFAIK they can be setup as an IPSec terminator for clients and block other traffic, which lowers the attack surface a bit. I’ve also seen people try to use “all the features”, set them up as DNS/DHCP/etc and

Re: UK, NL, & Asia LTE Providers for Opengear Console Servers

Are the Opengear boxes good gear? We currently have some boxes with a high failure rate and I’ve been on the hunt for something we can leverage globally that support LTE. J~ > On Jul 31, 2019, at 21:19, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > > Google Fi > >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 18:35 Ryan Gelobter

Re: UK, NL, & Asia LTE Providers for Opengear Console Servers

Google Fi On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 18:35 Ryan Gelobter wrote: > Anyone have recommendations for providers who I can use for LTE on > Opengear console servers in the UK, Netherlands, and Singapore? 1 provider > for all 3 countries would be great but I'll take what I can get. Oddly when > talking

UK, NL, & Asia LTE Providers for Opengear Console Servers

Anyone have recommendations for providers who I can use for LTE on Opengear console servers in the UK, Netherlands, and Singapore? 1 provider for all 3 countries would be great but I'll take what I can get. Oddly when talking to Opengear they don't really have any great advice. We use Verizon SIM

Re: Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

- On Jul 31, 2019, at 9:54 AM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote: Hi, > From the testing I have done with VZ 4G > I get 10mbs down and 2/3 up with a -65 RSSI. It’s still better to have LTE > for a backup then not to have it. You will have to keep in mind that if there is a generic service outage

Re: really amazon?

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:54:07AM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > > > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. > > > > Yes. It will. Are you telling us that Amazon, with its

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Actually if ARIN doesn’t pull the resources, after notification and a grace period to get them fixed, then what is the point in writing policy requiring that they be up to date and working? There needs to be checks and balances for systems to work. The only thing is what should the grace

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:02:58PM +0300, T??ma Gavrichenkov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen > wrote: > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > > in the ARIN

Re: really amazon?

Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. > > Yes. It will. Are you telling us that Amazon, with its enormous financial > and personnel resources, doesn't have ANYBODY on staff who

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Sandra Murphy wrote: > Scott, you might want to read "Policy Development Process (PDP)” > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ in order to discover just > exactly what John means by “If the community developed a policy”. > > You might also want to join the Public Policy Mailing List,

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Scott, you might want to read "Policy Development Process (PDP)” https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ in order to discover just exactly what John means by “If the community developed a policy”. You might also want to join the Public Policy Mailing List, arin-p...@arin.net, to discuss.

Re: really amazon?

On Jul 31, 2019, at 1:13 PM, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: >> >>> To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is >>> ab...@amazonaws.com >> >> You know that, and I know that,

Re: really amazon?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. Yes. It will. Are you telling us that Amazon, with its enormous financial and personnel resources, doesn't have ANYBODY on staff who knows how to properly manage an

Re: really amazon?

On 7/31/19 1:28 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: >> >> Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. > > I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it. I don't know about your network, but I have five role mail accounts,

Re: really amazon?

On 7/31/19 12:04 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > >> To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is >> ab...@amazonaws.com > > You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it

Re: really amazon?

On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: really amazon?

On 2019-07-31 23:13, Scott Christopher wrote: Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is ab...@amazonaws.com You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at

Re: really amazon?

Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > > > To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is > > ab...@amazonaws.com > > You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it > is to keep the

[NANOG-announce] Reminder: NANOG 77 call for presentations is open

NANOG Community - As a reminder, the NANOG Program Committee (PC) is still accepting proposals for talks, tutorials, tracks & panels at the upcoming NANOG 77 in Austin, Texas, October 28-30, 2019. Below is a summary of key details and dates from the Call For Presentations on the NANOG website,

Reminder: NANOG 77 call for presentations is open

NANOG Community - As a reminder, the NANOG Program Committee (PC) is still accepting proposals for talks, tutorials, tracks & panels at the upcoming NANOG 77 in Austin, Texas, October 28-30, 2019. Below is a summary of key details and dates from the Call For Presentations on the NANOG website,

Re: really amazon?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is > ab...@amazonaws.com You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it is to keep the ARIN info correct and up to date know

RE: Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

In my experience with LTE is that it’s never enough. We have bank branches with 20Mbs metro lines and on rare occasion when that circuit drops 4G LTE will provide you with 10mbs at best also note that latency is much higher which can mess with ipsec/VOIP etc. I don’t think you can pick how much

Re: really amazon?

To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is ab...@amazonaws.com On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 9:53:59 AM EDT, Rich Kulawiec wrote: Yes, this is egregious, but on the other hand even when the abuse reporting mechanisms are working my experience has been that

The future of transport in the metro area

Hello, I'm new to this mailing list. I hope I've understood the scope correctly! I've posted this question to ResearchGate but I haven't had any response. I'm hoping for some guidance from here. The question is: "I'm trying to identify trends in adoption of transport technology in the

Re: email delays from Google

Trey, the bees behind the hive say: "Please open an issue in this system: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/new?component=191885; >From what I can tell there are other folk with similar problems so some triangulation on 'what is actually wrong here?' is in order. On Wed, Jul 31, 2019

Re: Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

> On Jul 31, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > Matt Harris wrote on 7/31/2019 9:46 AM: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:21 AM Shaun Dombrosky > > wrote: >> Good Morning, >> >> First time NANOG poster, apologies if I breach etiquette. >> >> Does anyone

Re: Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

Matt Harris wrote on 7/31/2019 9:46 AM: On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:21 AM Shaun Dombrosky mailto:sdombro...@blackfoot.com>> wrote: Good Morning, First time NANOG poster, apologies if I breach etiquette. Does anyone have any first-hand data on how much data a small-medium

Re: Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:21 AM Shaun Dombrosky wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > First time NANOG poster, apologies if I breach etiquette. > > > > Does anyone have any first-hand data on how much data a small-medium > business (SMB) can expect to consume in a failover scenario over a 4G/LTE >

Re: Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:21 AM Shaun Dombrosky wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > First time NANOG poster, apologies if I breach etiquette. > > > > Does anyone have any first-hand data on how much data a small-medium > business (SMB) can expect to consume in a failover scenario over a 4G/LTE >

email delays from Google

We have been experiencing delays / failures receiving email from domains hosted by Google and *only* domains hosted by Google. This is happening to customers for whom we host the authoritative DNS servers.   For some reason, Google is not able to look up the MX and/or A record *sometimes*

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

> OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their resistance? (And > if known, > what are the *real* reasons if different?) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2018-October/thread.html -- Steve P

Estimated LTE Data Utilization in Failover Scenario

Good Morning, First time NANOG poster, apologies if I breach etiquette. Does anyone have any first-hand data on how much data a small-medium business (SMB) can expect to consume in a failover scenario over a 4G/LTE connection? Retail, under 50 head count, using PoS, maybe cloud accounting

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

John Curran wrote: > Scott - > > Alas, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of ARIN… we > don’t do anything other than implement policies that this community wants. If > the community developed a policy to require Abuse POC’s validation, and said > policy made clear that

Re: really amazon?

Yes, this is egregious, but on the other hand even when the abuse reporting mechanisms are working my experience has been that they emit no response (other than -- maybe -- boilerplate) and take no action, so it's not terribly surprising. ---rsk

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:04 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their resistance? > > Here's a good place to start: https://ripe78.ripe.net/archives/steno/37/ > ^F, "You're done", enjoy! P.S. Suddenly there's an important mistake in the transcript:

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:35 PM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:02:58 +0300, Töma Gavrichenkov said: > > such a policy (2019-04) is still in a discussion > > phase in RIPE and has already seen significant resistance. > > OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:02:58 +0300, T�ma Gavrichenkov said: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen > wrote: > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > > in the ARIN database.