Re: comcast v4 in pnw

John is no longer at the company - but Tony (cc'd) may be able to assist off-list. On 5/31/24, 14:58, "NANOG on behalf of Randy Bush" mailto:cable.comcast@nanog.org> on behalf of ra...@psg.com > wrote: a bunch of us comcast soho folk, and monitoring gear, are

Re: Help with removing DNS shinkhole FP from Charter/Spectrum

> However, there's no correction process for Spectrum's DNS sinkhole > But back to the topic: someone mentioned to me that Spectrum may not be the > direct providers for the DNS services they provide to their customers. If > anyone knows anything about how I might discover and reach out to the

Re: Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards)

prefer Zoom. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason via NANOG Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:08 AM To: Ben Cartwright-Cox via NANOG Subject: Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards) Yesterday the FCC broadband label order is in effect – so all ISPs need to publish the

Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards)

Yesterday the FCC broadband label order is in effect – so all ISPs need to publish them. Oct 10, 2024 is the deadline to produce machine-readable BB labels. I have kicked off an effort via the BITAG to standardize the format of these labels. See

Re: [EXTERNAL] Charter DNS servers returning malware filtered IP addresses

On 10/30/23, 16:02, "John R. Levine" mailto:jo...@iecc.com>> wrote: > I have no idea whether Charter uses one of these, some other third party, or their own. They don't use those providers as far as I am aware. I've alerted someone from CHTR of this thread. JL

Re: [EXTERNAL] Charter DNS servers returning malware filtered IP addresses

On 10/27/23, 19:01, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong wrote: > If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public resolvers > (e.g. 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so? > DNS isn’t the right place to attack this, IMHO. Are we sure that the filtering is done in the default view - I

Re: Comcast contact sought

> I have been trying to assist someone with a business connection that runs a > server farm. Recently the business cable modem started to short-stop port 53 > for UDP and TCP. Apparently, a transparent DNS proxy somehow got activated > and all outbound traffic to any IPv4 or IPv6 address is

L4S Trials (Comcast) & Inter-Domain Marking

FYI on two related items of interest to this list. 1 – If you are a Comcast customer, consider volunteering for our upcoming low latency networking trials (using IETF L4S). See my blog post at https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/comcast-kicks-off-industrys-first-low-latency-docsis-field-trials

RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

In the meantime please just select some unrelated industry on the form. We don’t care – it seems to be boilerplate. From: "Livingood, Jason" Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 at 15:46 To: "Eric C. Miller" , nanog Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Com

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

the telco industry. Eric From: NANOG On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason via NANOG Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 2:30 PM To: nanog Subject: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast) FYI that today we (Comcast) have announced the start of low latency networking (L4S) field trials. If you are a customer

Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

FYI that today we (Comcast) have announced the start of low latency networking (L4S) field trials. If you are a customer and would like to volunteer, please visit this page. For more info, there is a

Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

>> As a decent sized north American ISP I think I need totally agree with this >> post. There simply is not any economically justifiable reason to collect >> customer data, doing so is expensive, and unless you are trying to traffic >> shape like a cell carrier > They shape? News to me... You

Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

> Why would there be a difference between wireless and wired? Service provisioning in a mobile network is at the device level and tied to an individual vs. at a home shared across many devices & people. So just starting off there is more visibility to say X traffic is related to Y person. Then

Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

+1 to what Josh writes below. I would also differentiate between mobile networks (service provisioned to individual devices & often carrier s/w on the device) and wireline networks (home devices behind a router/gateway/NAT). I just don't think sale of data is a business for wireline ISPs. If it

Re: Google Speed Test

No only that - NDT is not even an actual speed test*. That it continues to show as the top sponsored result for "speed test" searches is a real shame. Jason * It does not test the aggregate throughput of a connection, merely what one TCP connection can achieve. It is actually a diagnostic tool

Comcast Network Peer Survey on DSCP/ECN for L4S

Hi – Comcast is working on the implementation of ultra-low latency networking, leveraging the IETF’s upcoming L4S standard. This standard will require passing ECN and DSCP markings across network boundaries. As a result, we are interested in your perspective on this and in how you handle

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

> is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner cases > helpful to this discussion? (this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place to interject) > Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... OR > based on

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

> I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download? I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate and has been doing so for 25+ years. I don't see that sort of trajectory

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

A related observation – years ago we gave cable modem bootfiles to a group of customers that had no rate shaping according to their subscription and compared that to existing customers (with an academic researcher). The experiment group did not know of the change, so it could not influence

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

>> The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a >> point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time >> & any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. ;-) If I were >> a policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust"

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

>> Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is >> enough for anybody. The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & any such point-in-time gauge will look

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

> This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 > operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions > of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever > changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low > bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.). > Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem +1 IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working

Re: RPKI adoption (was: Re: 2749 routes AT RISK )

From: NANOG on behalf of John Curran > Along these lines, I’d like to remind everyone of a fairly important > consultation that Andrew Hadenfeldt posted here last month > (FCC) seeks comment on vulnerabilities threatening the security and integrity > of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)...

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

> I asked him to remotely reboot the modem because there was high packet loss. FWIW, as a customer (assuming residential), you can login to the website and check for area outages/impairments at https://www.xfinity.com/support/status-map. You can also use the Xfinity app to remotely reboot

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

> Their crappy equipment needing rebooting every few weeks, not ridiculous. > Their purchasing gear from incompetent vendors who cannot be standards compliant for PoE PD negotiation, tragically plausible. Many customers buy their own cable modem. You can lease an Xfinity device as well and

Re: Bufferbloat and the pandemic was: V6 still not supported

> Given the tremendous growth of video conferencing which strains the upstream, I wonder how many calls ISP's are getting because the "internet is slow" which is attributable to bufferbloat. Is there really anything that ISP can do if they don't supply the ÇPE? What percentage of

Re: Comcast? Layer2 / ELAN

I’ll reply off-list in a sec From: NANOG on behalf of Joe Carroll Date: Friday, October 29, 2021 at 14:16 To: nanog list Subject: Comcast? Layer2 / ELAN Greetings Fellow Nanog'ers Are there any Comcast engineers in the group that could help to sort out a 10GB layer2 ELAN issue in Florida?

Re: Comcast Customer Owned Modem Firmware : WAS : Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

> Does Comcast actually allow customers who own their own modems full > management of the modem firmware? As far as I have been aware since my time > at Adelphia 20-odd years ago, that has never been allowed by provider; all > users of a given model had the same firmware enforced, customer

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

On 9/13/21, 12:02, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > Yes, but it’s tragically opt-out instead of opt-in as it should be. It is not a default for an Internet access service. It comes bundled as one of several features in an optional add on service. See

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

As Alex said, you can submit a request to review a block at https://spa.xfinity.com. Note that this service relies substantially on 3rd party list sources

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

On 9/10/21, 10:58, "NANOG on behalf of Chris Boyd" wrote: > Why is Comcast blocking things? That seems like it’s out of scope for an ISP. For Internet access, sure. But ISPs also have value added protection services and this part of an optional content filtering service that is integrated

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

, 2021 at 11:36 To: "Livingood, Jason" Cc: Abhi Devireddy , "nanog@nanog.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Why does it have to be non-US? Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 4

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I have seen a lot of questions about what is needed for video/eLearning/telehealth. IMO the beauty of those apps is that they use adaptive bitrate protocols and can work in a wide range of last mile environments – even quite acceptably via mobile network while you are in transit. In my

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more > asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical > home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration > that is happening remotely. I'm not sure ratio is the

Re: Comcast routine maintenance.

Please accept our apologies for the wording of that notice. I looked at the ticket and it is emergency unplanned physical network repair. I appreciate your patience as a customer and am happy to provide further info or assistance if you’d like (just ping me off-list). Jason From: NANOG on

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

> If YouTube can mash back-to-back unskippable ads on demand into content, > they can put an emergency alert in there, and I bet people would like them > more than the ads. +1 to that. If a real-time ad exchange can run a market auction to serve you highly targeted ads in fractions of a

Re: Cable Company Hotspots

> Unclear wether it’s over a separately provisioned bandwidth channel, or > wether it shares the aggregate capacity of the HFC. In the Comcast network it uses separately-provisioned bandwidth in the access network. - Jason

Participate in COVID-19 Paper for BITAG? [NANOG]

I thought this may be of interest to some of the network operators here on the NANOG list. I am reaching out to solicit interest in participating in the development of a new technical paper from the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG). In September we will begin work on a short

Re: It's not about the congestion, it's about the profit motive driving the industry

> Internet congestion is a symptom, not the cause of this thread. [JL] I'm wondering if one of the issues is problems with legacy TCP congestion control algorithms. The industry has been poking at that for awhile and approaches range from BBR to fq_codel. This is worth exploring a bit more IMO.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On this subject, this is worth a read: https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/emergency-information/Pandemic_Comms_Impact_Study_%28December%202007%29.pdf Department of Homeland Security Pandemic Influenza Impact on Communications Networks Study Dec 2007 JL From: NANOG on behalf of Tom Beecher

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

> Folks saw congestion from a massive free content drop this past week. > But as folks had called out, that was the CDN angle of distributing that > content rather than the actual game play. There is a rather long discussion > about that in the "akamai yesterday - what in the world was that"

Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that

(as an aside) Some of this timed & controlled distribution (by the content originator) should be possible using IETF Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) standards - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cdni/documents/. The initial RFC 6707 provides some background -

Re: FCC Takes Steps to Enforce Quality Standards for Rural Broadband

I do not. But in the FCC’s Measuring Broadband America program (MBA) they have SamKnows measurement servers located in a few places so perhaps that is what they mean? See https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-eighth-report which says

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

The challenge of course is that in the absence of a silver bullet solution, that people working to combat all forms of child exploitation are simultaneously trying several things, ranging from going to the source as you suggest and arresting people, to trying to interrupt the online tools that

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On 10/1/19, 3:44 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: > Note that the UK is probably the country in Europe with the biggest use of lying DNS resolvers for censorship. What many people dismiss as 'lying' would be typically described as 'complying with the law' in certain

Re: Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts?

On 3/11/19, 11:26 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Sean Donelan" wrote: I think you are correct, Netflix and Hulu are at the wrong layer. Netflix and Hulu don't control the smart TVs and smart speakers ecosystems used to present their content. Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri and Google Assistant

Re: Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts?

+1 to Rich's note: I agree we need to be careful not to extrapolate our experiences/devices/preferences to the average person. Emergency alerts serve a valuable purpose, especially when something like a wild fire or tornado or whatever is approaching and an extra few seconds or a minute of

Re: Network Speed Testing and Monitoring Platform

We ran into an issue with RPi and Banana Pi hitting multi-hundred meg and 1 - 2 gig speeds reliably, and ended up using ODROID - https://www.hardkernel.com/. Also, Ookla (speedtest.net) have a software client that can be embedded in CPE gateway devices as does SamKnows. JL On 1/16/19, 3:49

Re: Proving Gig Speed

I recently talked at the IRTF on this subject and followed up with a blog post at https://blog.apnic.net/2018/06/21/measurement-challenges-in-the-gigabit-era/. There's also an open source speed test project you may want to consider at https://github.com/Comcast/Speed-testJS. Jason On

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" wrote: > They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it out, > surely an ISP can... Except for cases when it is impossible or impractical to update software on

Re: Bitly Contact?

Contact person found! Thanks NANOG! ☺ On 3/10/17, 12:13 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Livingood, Jason" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote: Anyone on the NANOG list here from Bitly? I’m trying to find a contact. Thanks Jason

Bitly Contact?

Anyone on the NANOG list here from Bitly? I’m trying to find a contact. Thanks Jason

Re: Comcast business IPv6 vs rbldnsd & PSBL

I can send it along to folks here at Comcast. - Jason On 11/28/16, 1:46 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Rik van Riel" wrote: First of all, kudos to Comcast for trying to roll out IPv6 across their entire network. Static IPv6 netblocks

Re: INFORM: Web-Based Speed Test Hackathon - Princeton, NJ in November

if that is the case. Jason On 10/16/16, 12:30 PM, "Cody Grosskopf" <codygrossk...@gmail.com<mailto:codygrossk...@gmail.com>> wrote: It's completely possible I have overlooked but you call it an open source tool but provide no source? On Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 1:40 PM Livingood, Jason <ja

INFORM: Web-Based Speed Test Hackathon - Princeton, NJ in November

May be of interest to folks on this list… Comcast is developing a new open source web-based speed test – see http://labs.comcast.com/beta-testing-a-new-open-source-speed-test. ISPs, academic researchers, and others will likely be interested in using this rather than older tools. One goal is to

Re: Krebs on Security booted off Akamai network after DDoS attack proves pricey

On 9/26/16, 7:09 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews" wrote: > A good ISP would be informing their customers that they are seeing anomalous > traffic. Therein lies the problem if the traffic does not look anomalous I suppose. But even if it does look unusual, ISPs would be asking consumers to

Re: Krebs on Security booted off Akamai network after DDoS attack proves pricey

On 9/25/16, 5:57 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote: > Yeah, ‘cause that was so successful in the past. > Remember University of Wisconsin vs. D-Link and their hard-coded NTP server > address? Ha! Yeah, an oldie but a

Re: Speedtest.net not accessible in Chrome due to deceptive ads

And work on accurate measurement of higher link speeds. ;-) On 7/20/16, 11:42 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Collin Anderson" wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote: >

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On 6/5/16, 7:11 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Christopher Morrow" wrote: >I dislike the IP folks as much as anyone, but :( flix has to make a >good-faith-effort or they'll lose content sources, I suspect. Perhaps so. And now that they are

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

The SB6141, while fine for now, is only an 8 downstream channel device. If you are buying one now I would recommend a a 16 or 24 channel device. Alternatively, wait (lease) a few months and buy a DOCSIS 3.1 modem in retail when they come out. Jason Livingood Comcast On 6/3/16, 11:42 PM,

FCC Privacy NPRM [was Re: GeoIP database]

I have not yet read all of the 147 pages of the FCC Privacy NPRM - https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-proposed-rules-protect-broadband- consumer-privacy. But it may be worth noting, especially for this audience, that the FCC proposes considering things like IP addresses and geo-location

Re: Thank you, Comcast. (aka patch your D-Link gear)

As a followup to this issue, and looking specifically at SSDP abuse (not the DNS amplification noted in the 1st email), one point of commonality we have identified in many customers is a D-Link device (range of different models). If you or someone you know uses a D-Link device, please see this

Re: Thank you, Comcast.

On 2/26/16, 11:44 AM, "Blake Hudson" > wrote: Jason, how do you propose to block SSDP without also blocking legitimate traffic as well (since SSDP uses a port > 1024 and is used as part of the ephemeral port range on some devices) ? As Roland suggested,

Re: Thank you, Comcast.

On 2/26/16, 12:33 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Octavio Alvarez" wrote: >On 26/02/16 09:16, Brielle Bruns wrote: >> Place the blame for local resolvers listening on WAN squarely where it >>belongs - the router vendors who make these

Re: messing with DNS, was Thank you, Comcast.

On 2/26/16, 1:03 PM, "NANOG on behalf of John Levine" on behalf of jo...@iecc.com> wrote: T-W and I am fairly sure Comcast have per-customer opt-out from DNS "enhancement". T-W's is at

Re: Thank you, Comcast.

FWIW, Comcast's list of blocked ports is at http://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/internet/list-of-blocked-ports/. The suspensions this week are in direct response to reported abuse from amplification attacks, which we obviously take very seriously. We are in the process of considering

Re: Thank you, Comcast.

On 2/26/16, 8:27 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett" wrote: >"you will also block legitimate return traffic if the >customers run their own DNS servers or use opendns / google dns / etc." > >I'm fine with that. Residential customers

Re: Thank you, Comcast.

And you¹d be correct (about SSDP). ;-) - Jason (Comcast) On 2/25/16, 10:52 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Paras Jha" wrote: >It's interesting that they'd call about DNS amplification... You don't >typically see DNS amplified floods

Re: PCH Peering Paper

On 2/12/16, 8:56 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Niels Bakker" wrote: >* bedard.p...@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) [Sat 13 Feb 2016, 01:40 CET]: >>I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free >>peering between large content

Re: PCH Peering Paper

How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason >On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf

re: PCH Peering Paper

How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason PS - My email address has changed and

ICYMI: Princeton Conference on Interconnection

I figured this might interest a few folks here: https://citp.princeton.edu/event/interconnection/ Jason

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. [Comcast meter Q]

On 1/9/16, 12:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Robert Webb" wrote: >Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, >but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I >do not think I have ever seen

Re: Nat

IPv4 NAT!? Free yourself from the tyranny of shared addresses. ;-) http://www.comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg Jason On 12/15/15, 1:08 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ahmed Munaf" wrote: >Dear All,

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://lapeste.org/enough.php?r> Livingood Jason

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://marmaradetay.com/tell.php?0b> Livingood Jason

Re: WiFI on utility poles

You can learn more at http://wifi.xfinity.com/. There are more than 8M hotspots around the country today and we're doing more and more outdoor / public area WiFi hotspots. In my area (Philadelphia) I hit them all along the route that my commuter train takes, so it's convenient. The XFINITY

Re: WiFI on utility poles

Sabotaging how? - Jason On 9/9/15, 10:20 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Hunter Fuller" wrote: >Wow, it is like they are actively sabotaging us. Sigh... > >None of that in this area yet - I'm sure it's only a matter of time >though. > >On

Re: WiFI on utility poles

If you run across any you think are terribly placed, feel free to email Corey and Ken with the location and your thoughts on better placement. - Jason On 9/9/15, 10:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett" wrote: >Usually terribly

Re: WiFI on utility poles

Odd - I got the email fine. The bound message you got also is in French, which would not seem like something our email servers would do. Are you sure that was from our servers? I¹d love to see the mail headers so I can talk to the enterprise mail team. Jason On 9/10/15, 1:37 PM, "NANOG on

Re: WiFI on utility poles

Always getting blamed for Cogent stuff, no worries. ;-) - JL On 9/10/15, 2:23 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Lyon" wrote: >My apologies, Comcast, I have an itchy trigger finger > >A little googling indicates that the mail server that

Re: Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?

On 6/8/15, 6:56 AM, Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.netmailto:fkitt...@gwi.net wrote: Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband... Without respect to the merits of the AEI article, I did want to point out that cable companies have been investing in broadband / Internet services well

Re: Comcast Postmaster IPv6 issue

Someone will reach out. In the future, FYI: http://postmaster.comcast.net/ Thx - Jason On 3/27/15, 12:17 PM, Drew Linsalata drew.linsal...@gmail.com wrote: We're wresting with a Comcast IPv6 SMTP block and none of the Comcast postmaster communication tools allows entering an IPv6 address.

Re: FCC releases Open Internet document

Note: IANAL and this is my *personal* reading (in no way the view of my employer). I¹m only 7 pages in as well, so this is likely under-informed and in another 300+ pages I will become more enlightened... Part A.16. No Throttling. ...A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access

Re: HBO DNS Admins?

And now the DS records are fixed, so we flushed the cache. It appears Google Public DNS has done the same. JL On 3/9/15, 10:18 PM, Casey Deccio ca...@deccio.netmailto:ca...@deccio.net wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Livingood, Jason jason_living

HBO DNS Admins?

Any DNS admins for HBO here? Your FQDN for order.hbonow.com looks a little messed up. http://dnsviz.net/d/order.hbonow.com/VP5DKQ/dnssec/ Jason

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Hostnaming is not always straightforward, as there are variations of commercial service (some with static IPs, others with dynamic, some enterprise, branch office, SMB, etc.). FWIW: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/15, 4:44 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links. Bingo! Yes, commercial customers do run

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]

I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are released, but my guess is it potentially covers more than people may initially think. For example, I would guess many ³transit² networks will be covered since they also provide in many cases retail access to schools,

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

I¹m not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I would guess that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of caveat has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means ISPs can¹t block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff like block a

Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23)

FWIW, if you phone support you generally end up with a tier-1 person. In cases where people have more technical background, you may want to try things that land in more senior levels of Care (or even get checked by engineering directly) such as: - Customer support forums:

Re: DNS Admin at Comcast

Sent a note off-list. - Jason On 2/20/15, 1:38 PM, Mark Stevens mana...@monmouth.com wrote: If a DNS Admin at Comcast could contact me offline it would be great. This is concerning your IPV6 configured mail servers. Thanks, Mark

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, Javier J jav...@advancedmachines.usmailto:jav...@advancedmachines.us wrote: Also, don't you think there is something just morally wrong with the fact that your customers don't know they are providing a public access point out of their homes by just being comcast HSI

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/10/14, 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: Why am I not surprised? You¹re a smart guy - don¹t believe everything you read. ;-) Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi would be abused to download illegal material or launch a botnet, to name some random

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/10/14, 9:41 PM, Charles Mills w3y...@gmail.commailto:w3y...@gmail.com wrote: In the US at least you have to authenticate with your Comcast credentials and not like a traditional open wifi where you can just make up an email and accept the terms of service. I also understand that it is a

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/10/14, 10:55 PM, Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: Really it is just the power they seem to be complaining about. And per my other post, the citation was for two separate commercial devices and the commercial WiFi AP being used 24x7. The one customers get is a very, very different

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/11/14, 9:37 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: It is, you only have to log in once and then it remembers your MAC address. Right, so user name password + MAC address. As more devices support things like Passpoint, this will get more sophisticated. Jason

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

Here is how you disable it. 1 – Login to the customer portal https://customer.comcast.com/ 2 – Click the “Users Preferences” tab (see pic @ http://media.bestofmicro.com/4/Z/442115/original/xfinity-how-to-disable-3.jpg) 3 – Click “Manage XFINITY WiFi” (see pic @

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/11/14, 1:06 PM, Kain, Rebecca (.) bka...@ford.com wrote: No one who has Comcast, who I've forward this to, knew about this (all US customers). Maybe you can send here the notification Comcast sent out, to your customers. I emailed you off-list. I am happy to investigate individual cases.

  1   2   >