Re: How to manage Static IPs to customers
On 5/7/20 5:54 PM, Brandon Jackson via NANOG wrote: > I have seen (Charter) and heard quite a few run RIP or some other routing > protocol on the CPE. Yep, it's RIP. They don't support IPv6 on this either. I've been asking for IPv6 since 2006, it's always next year. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
Re: How to manage Static IPs to customers
I do not believe it is a GRE tunnel. I have seen (Charter) and heard quite a few run RIP or some other routing protocol on the CPE. Though I have not seen anything specific about Comcast specifically. Brandon Jackson On Thu, May 7, 2020, 16:54 Brandon Martin wrote: > On 5/7/20 4:49 PM, Javier Gutierrez Guerra wrote: > > Just wanted to reach out and get an idea how is people managing > customers with static Ips, more specifically on Docsis networks where the > customer could be moved between cmts's when a node is split > > Around here, Comcast seems to provision a GRE tunnel from the CPE back > to some router within their network and run it over whatever IP address > the CMTS hands out to the modem. Not very efficient, and it mandates > that you use their CPE (they won't give you the necessary info to set it > up yourself). > > AFAIK, such service is only available on their "business class" DOCSIS > product and is upcharged even then. > -- > Brandon Martin >
Re: alternative to voip gateways
That probably depends on your country. Here nothing less than 100 Mbps is acceptable :-). Just pointing out that is not actually possible without rebuilding. To his original query I would suggest simply using CPEs with VoIP ports and skip analog voice. Regards, Baldur On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:03 PM Mel Beckman wrote: > Baldur, > > According to Nick Edwards, the OP, the main application is voice, which > most any DSLAM will handle easily, and solve his IP PBX line consolidation > problem. Instead of physical lines into the PBX, he can use the integrated > DSLAM SIP calling capability as the IP PBX interface. Given that only some > of the 1700 lines will be in use simultaneously, that amounts to very > little bandwidth. > > Data capacity of 10 or 20 Mbps in this environment would be pure gravy, > and 100 Mbps is almost certainly not expected, or needed, for "worker > huts". I'm assuming the workers are not all tele-surgeons . > > -mel > -- > *From:* NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl < > baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:55 PM > *To:* nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: alternative to voip gateways > > > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin > wrote: > > On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned > and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much > more expensive to dig and trench. > > Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. > In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk > unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. > Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over > surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at > ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. > -- > > > Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. > 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no > vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is > going to be a ton of crosstalk. > > If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant > such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to > build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral > DSLAMs. > > Regards, > > Baldur > > >
Re: How to manage Static IPs to customers
On 5/7/20 4:49 PM, Javier Gutierrez Guerra wrote: Just wanted to reach out and get an idea how is people managing customers with static Ips, more specifically on Docsis networks where the customer could be moved between cmts's when a node is split Around here, Comcast seems to provision a GRE tunnel from the CPE back to some router within their network and run it over whatever IP address the CMTS hands out to the modem. Not very efficient, and it mandates that you use their CPE (they won't give you the necessary info to set it up yourself). AFAIK, such service is only available on their "business class" DOCSIS product and is upcharged even then. -- Brandon Martin
How to manage Static IPs to customers
Hi there, Just wanted to reach out and get an idea how is people managing customers with static Ips, more specifically on Docsis networks where the customer could be moved between cmts's when a node is split Thanks in advance for all responses, Javier Gutierrez Guerra
Re: alternative to voip gateways
Baldur, According to Nick Edwards, the OP, the main application is voice, which most any DSLAM will handle easily, and solve his IP PBX line consolidation problem. Instead of physical lines into the PBX, he can use the integrated DSLAM SIP calling capability as the IP PBX interface. Given that only some of the 1700 lines will be in use simultaneously, that amounts to very little bandwidth. Data capacity of 10 or 20 Mbps in this environment would be pure gravy, and 100 Mbps is almost certainly not expected, or needed, for "worker huts". I'm assuming the workers are not all tele-surgeons . -mel From: NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin mailto:lists.na...@monmotha.net>> wrote: On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and > already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more > expensive to dig and trench. Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. -- Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk. If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs. Regards, Baldur
Re: alternative to voip gateways
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin wrote: > On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned > and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much > more expensive to dig and trench. > > Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. > In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk > unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. > Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over > surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at > ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. > -- > Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk. If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs. Regards, Baldur
Re: alternative to voip gateways
On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and > already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more > expensive to dig and trench. Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. -- Brandon Martin
Re: alternative to voip gateways
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > > Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL. > > We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree. However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations. Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit. The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit. Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company. (*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending. Regards, Baldur
Re: McAfee's certificate on akamai seems to be invalid
On 5/7/20 12:16 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: It looks like you shouldn't attempt to access that site over HTTPS, just via plain HTTP. Do you have any official bit of documentation that links to the HTTPS version? Given the prevalence of opportunistic upgrades to TLS these days, I'd argue that having a misbehaving server listing on 443 (and accepting SNI for a name that works on plain HTTP, if applicable) at the same domain as a well-known, public HTTP server, especially from a "security" company, is a poor idea. -- Brandon Martin
Re: McAfee's certificate on akamai seems to be invalid
* drew.wea...@thenap.com (Drew Weaver) [Thu 07 May 2020, 16:50 CEST]: I contacted their support and CS but if anyone knows someone at either organization it appears that the certificate for downloadcenter.mcafee.com Is invalid. Has been this way for a while. It looks like you shouldn't attempt to access that site over HTTPS, just via plain HTTP. Do you have any official bit of documentation that links to the HTTPS version? -- Niels.
Re: alternative to voip gateways
> Brandon Martin said: > In most of the USA, it's simply not cost-feasible to get access to that > unless you either are the ILEC or are a well-established CLEC from a long > time ago. Brandon, In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench. -mel via cell > On May 7, 2020, at 8:58 AM, Brandon Martin wrote: > > On 5/7/20 5:13 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: >> Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL. > > Only if you're comparing entirely new copper plant to existing copper plant > (including drops), in my experience. If you compare greenfield to > greenfield, the cost of fiber to the prem is not much greater than copper > (coax or twisted pair). > > If you've already got access to existing copper plant, then reusing at least > the drops is definitely worth looking into, yes. > > In most of the USA, it's simply not cost-feasible to get access to that > unless you either are the ILEC or are a well-established CLEC from a long > time ago. The ILEC mostly gets free reign to set the access costs, and they > set them sufficiently high as to "discourage" competition from using it > where they can get away with it. > -- > Brandon Martin
Re: alternative to voip gateways
On 5/7/20 5:13 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL. Only if you're comparing entirely new copper plant to existing copper plant (including drops), in my experience. If you compare greenfield to greenfield, the cost of fiber to the prem is not much greater than copper (coax or twisted pair). If you've already got access to existing copper plant, then reusing at least the drops is definitely worth looking into, yes. In most of the USA, it's simply not cost-feasible to get access to that unless you either are the ILEC or are a well-established CLEC from a long time ago. The ILEC mostly gets free reign to set the access costs, and they set them sufficiently high as to "discourage" competition from using it where they can get away with it. -- Brandon Martin
McAfee's certificate on akamai seems to be invalid
I contacted their support and CS but if anyone knows someone at either organization it appears that the certificate for downloadcenter.mcafee.com Is invalid. Has been this way for a while. -Drew
Re: alternative to voip gateways
Baldur Norddahl wrote: I own a FTTH based ISP so I believe I know exactly what the cost are. As it is we are smashing the copper based competition. A copper plant is not free to run and either it can not deliver the expected speed or it requires significant investments to get the loop length down. Expected speed? You should be comparing FTTH and FTTC. I am not trying to suggest what the OP should do, I am just raising the possibility that there might be another way. If you factor in deprecation and future proofing of investment, the investment in fiber might actually result in the better financial result of the company. Even if the initial investment is higher. Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL. Masataka Ohta
