We are getting this messages when sending emails from our domain. We've
submitted tickets, but haven't received a response yet. Anyone have any
insights?
550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [1.1.1.1] weren't sent. Please
contact your Internet service provider since part of their network is on
You can do 32Q plus 2 OFDM blocks as well. But who has that kind of spectrum,
we surely don’t. A 96Mhz block maybe.
But you can’t take the total at 100G and say that’s beyond your scale, you
don’t run at full saturation do you? :)
And in order to run DCAM2s you’ll have to upgrade the RSMs to
16 connectors per DCAM2 times 6 cards is 96 DS service groups in a
chassis. At ~1.2 Gbps per connector (using 32 SC-QAM DOCSIS 3.0
channels) that's ~ 100gigabits per chassis. Quite a bit above my scale ;- )
The E6k can also do DOCSIS 3.1, which we use today, though I'm not sure
what the
E6K using gen 1 DCAMs can do about 32 service groups give or take, not that
hard to get to a point with splits where you want to go past those numbers. Gen
2 DCAMs double that by going to 16 connectors compared to 8. cBR8 is less than
the E6K.
The point of node splits is to lower customers per
Aaron, I was thinking something similar. I've never once had a node
split require moving a customer to a different CMTS. Even the very old
and (relatively) low capacity 7200 VXR could serve several nodes per
line card and supported several line cards per chassis. Newer cBR8, E6k,
and the like
I believe some of the bigger guys do BSoD (business services over DOCSI), L2
out the CMTS then take it to a central router for the CPEs gateway. Being that
the GW lives on the CMTS in a normal setup, during node splits that would
require customers moving to a new CMTS it might mean the customer
The spec allows for bridging or layer 3 but none of the major or certified
manufacturers support bridging on larger platforms. (>1000 modems)
Scott Helms
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:56 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> I'm curious...
>
> Is it part of the DOCSIS spec that the CMTS terminates L3, or
I'm curious...
Is it part of the DOCSIS spec that the CMTS terminates L3, or can they
bridge to IEEE 802(.3) and delegate that to some other piece of gear?
I'm unfortunately not familiar with the MSO world much at all aside from
a little bit of L1.
--
Brandon Martin
We have a provisioning system (promptlink) that we use to map cable modems
to their static ip addresses. The provisioning system has a gui front end
and it sits on linux and also acts as a dhcp server, etc. This is the same
ip address that we use for cable-helper (like ip-helper on a cmts bundle
In response to feedback from operational security communities,
CAIDA's source address validation measurement project
(https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly
reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which
we received packets with a spoofed source address.
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:56 AM Michael Crapse wrote:
>
> On our network(which isn't docsis, granted) we use PPPoE for all static IP
> addresses, because it allows /32 ip address allocations for all home CPE
> routers, upstream, the routers handle routing via ospf to change the path of
> where
I am also interested in this. We are using DOCSIS and I am not sure what other
providers with DOCSIS are using, any help on this will be appreciated.
Thank you
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Michael Crapse
Sent: May 8, 2020 11:54 AM
To: edwin.malle...@gmail.com
Cc:
On our network(which isn't docsis, granted) we use PPPoE for all static IP
addresses, because it allows /32 ip address allocations for all home CPE
routers, upstream, the routers handle routing via ospf to change the path
of where that /32 public IP goes. It allows "zero touch" moving of a
So in most cases I'm aware of, the cable provider did not use RIP directly
to a customer-managed device. The cable operator would deploy their own
managed device, implement RIP and the appropriate keychains between the
operator-managed premise device and the CMTS. As for the use cases, RIP was
Talking to a friend, he suggested to map the specific ASNs in this
situation, and treat it separately.
Well, I don't think this is scalable...
Just to give you an idea of how big is this question, I have made some
scripts to count how much organizations exists with 1, 2, 3, and so ASNs
allocated.
Hello everyone
P.S .: I apologize, but I write for multiple email lists, precisely because
it is a topic that interests multiple regions.
P.S.2: The objective in this proposal is to make feasible the creation of
validation mechanisms for the creation of IRR Route / Route6 Objects,
without
Hi,
In my previous job, we managed static IPs by implementing L2TP tunnels
between CPEs and central Juniper LNS. It wasn't very elegant (at least for
mtu, MSS clamping), but the design was done around 15 years ago :)
BR
Pierre
Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 00:58, Bryan Fields a écrit :
> On 5/7/20
Hi all,
OARC is hosting an online meeting on June 9th, 17:00-19:00
UTC.
The Programme Committee are seeking contributions from the community.
All DNS-related subjects are welcome, but we're particularly interested in
content which is timely and operationally relevant in light of the COVID-19
On 5/8/20 8:57 AM, Javier Gutierrez Guerra wrote:
> That's surprising to me, I have no intentions to do routing with our cable
> subscribers, that seems like a headache for both sides
Meh, there are BNG solutions out there;
but RIP's not horrible _in_this_context_
> Today we have
Javier,
There's really no good way to handle this without routing or tunneling that
I've been able to find in a very long time. (SD-WAN can help, but it's
just a fancy way to tunnel in this regard.) It's pretty amazing that this
is such an issue, but it remains so. I have tried to work around
That's surprising to me, I have no intentions to do routing with our cable
subscribers, that seems like a headache for both sides
Today we have specific ranges within subnets from where we assign IPs to
customers, my main problem that I'm trying to get around is having to change a
customer
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there
Of course.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*).
> (*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances.
"Acceptable"
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 3:57:35 PM
Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
24 matches
Mail list logo
