Re: OT: IPSec Transport vs Tunnel modes (Was: VPN recommendations?)

[Crist Clark]

It's not like IPsec protocols (it's a suite of protocols and concepts, not
one) are proprietary or something. There are pretty ASCII pictures in RFCs
with all about how the packets are put together. See section 3 of RFC 4303
to see how ESP transport and tunnel mode datagrams are put together.

For the tl;dr, in transport mode everything above IP header is the payload.
In tunnel mode, the whole IP datagram is the payload. The contents of the
payload are specified by the "Next Header" field of the ESP header. For an
encapsulated IPv4 packet, it would be protocol 4 (IP-in-IP). For an IPv6
packet, it would be 41. For TCP in transport mode, it would be 6. UDP is
17. Etc.

If you want to see it in action yourself, you can set the encryption algo
to NULL and do a capture.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:16 AM Grant Taylor via NANOG 
wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> On 2/12/22 8:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > It's tunnel mode plus a tunneling protocol plus some implicit routing
> > and firewalling which gets in the way of dynamic routing.
>
> I assume you meant to say that it's /transport/ mode plus a tunneling
> protocol.
>
> I wonder if you are thinking more of an IPSec VPN management suite of
> sorts, e.g. wizard / helper that is included in some devices.  I'm
> thinking at a very low (manual) level.  The "implicit routing" and
> "firewalling" are the strongest indicators of this to me.  The manual
> IPSec that I've done on Linux (via the `ip xfrm` command) doesn't touch
> firewalling and I believe that addresses inside the tunnel would be
> completely separate operations / commands.
>
> > Try it if you don't believe me. Set up tunnel mode ipsec manually on
> > two nodes (no IKE) and get them talking to each other. Then change
> > one to transport mode and add I think it's an IPIP tunnel but I don't
> > remember for certain. And add the appropriate routes into the tunnel
> > virtual device. You'll find they talk.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have the leisure time to do this experimentation
> currently.  As such I'm going to put this on my to-do pile for future
> investigation ~> follow up.
>
> I do not recall reading about IPSec /Tunnel/ mode re-using an existing
> tunneling protocol; IPIP, etc.  Perhaps I'm misremembering.  Perhaps it
> inherently does so without declaring as such.
>
> > What did you think IPSec was doing? Transport mode encrypts the layer
> > 4 and up of the packet between two machines; it doesn't encapsulate
> > it. When they added tunnel mode, the inner layer 3 had to go somewhere.
>
> My understanding is that /Transport/ mode applies AH (no encryption) and
> / or ESP (encryption) to L4 datagrams and that /Tunnel/ mode does the
> same to L3 packets.
>
> P.S.  I'm sending this reply to NANOG in case anyone else has any
> contribution / comments.  I suspect any future reply will be directly to
> Bill as this is getting further off topic, both for NANOG in general and
> for this VPN recommendations thread.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
>

Re: junos config commit question

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Sure, but the post I replied to originally was someone stating that commit 
confirm is problematic when you forget the second commit.

I was explaining the easy way to recover from that scenario and it then got 
taken out of context… Twice now.

Owen


> On Feb 16, 2022, at 19:54 , Paschal Masha  
> wrote:
> 
> edit 
> rollback 0 
> commit 
> 
> "rollback 0" discards all your recent changes to the candidate configuration, 
> include "delete interfaces". If you "rollback 0" then run "show | compare" no 
> output will be displayed, meaning your changes have been discarded. Don't run 
> "commit confirm x" when the change is "delete interfaces" 
> 
> Regards 
> Paschal Masha | Engineering 
> Skype ID: paschal.masha 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG"  
> To: "Jay Hennigan"  
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 01:14:08 AM 
> Subject: Re: junos config commit question 
> 
> Then you didn’t use “commit confirm” as in the post this replied to. 
> 
> Owen 
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 12:23, Jay Hennigan  wrote: 
>> 
>> On 2/16/22 09:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: 
>> 
>>> You can also do: 
>>> config 
>>>  
>>> commit 
>>> rollback 1 
>>> commit 
>> 
>> Unless you're remote and  breaks your ability to reach 
>> the box. Then you're hosed after the first "commit". 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net 
>> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 
>> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV 
> 
> 

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[hak]

>I believe that should be 19-72A1.
>
>https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf
>
>Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August 
>2nd, 2022.

I'm reading that document and that's not what it appears to say at all.

This seems to be about discontinuing the artificial price restrictions of
2 and 4 wire dry pair loops that LECs resell to service providers, e.g.
competitive DSL providers.

I don't see anything in this order which would mandate that LECs discontinue
their own DSL or POTS services.  It would be especially ludicrous since in
many parts of many markets, there is no alternative at this time.
Shane

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Aaron Porter]

Same issues in NYC. I'm in the bay area burbs and at least once a month get
marketing from AT or Sonic about FTTH that stops 2 doors away. The bonded
DSL alternative is... Functional but a couple times more expensive than my
neighbors pay.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/verizon-wiring-up-500k-homes-with-fios-to-settle-years-long-fight-with-nyc/

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 10:38 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> *nods*
>
> If there's not a fiscal reason to not do it (which USF and other
> give-aways solve), then there's a political reason. Gotta solve that one on
> a case-by-case basis.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Aaron Wendel" 
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:13:52 PM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural
> America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm
> that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad
> band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her
> porn is important enough to subsidize.
>
> If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a
> population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make
> from a financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local
> red tape, fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers
> agreeing not to overbuild each other and incentives given by said large
> providers to developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.
>
> Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit
> fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT
> Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they
> don't get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the
> developers to keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure
> costs and/or paying the developments and complexes a kickback for every
> subscriber. Now the FCC says you can't do that but they get around it by
> altering the language in their agreements.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 2/16/2022 11:52 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> >> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for
> >> 200 meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually
> >> had better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible
> >> customer service) for years.
> >>
> >> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
> >> across the street have no option but slow DSL.
> >>
> >> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
> >
> > There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
> > silicon valley alone.
> >
> >> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where
> >> it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The
> >> only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the
> >> map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but again,
> >> there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember if he actually got his
> >> CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.
> >
> > Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
> > It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a
> > population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population
> > density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at
> > 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
> >
> > Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list
> > at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
> >
> > I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
> > I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t
> > have actual data.
> >
> > The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
> > utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the
> > mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
> > 1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
> > 2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
> > areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
> > dwellings.
> > 3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
> > where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy
> > in order to boost sales prices.
> >
> > Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
> > broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
> > underserved.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list
> >> with even a 

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Shrikumar.H]

Upon digging a bit more:

Looks like a typo .. and a typo that seems have been copy pasted by so
many providers all over the place.

It must be 19-72A1, not 10-72A1.

Do a Google Search for "Order 10-72A1" and you find tons of hits for that
exact phrase quoted in your email, with 10-72A1, and everything else word
for word, except on a different dot com.

But one hit .. just one of those hits! .. has this instead:

| The Sunset of Copper POTS (~Plain Old Telephone Service~) Lines FCC order
| 19-72A1 (issued August 2, 2019) has officially granted telecommunications
| carriers permission to abandon outdated, degrading copper POTs lines.

So, it seems someone typo-ed the 19- as 10-, and everyone else copy-pasta-ed
that. Ah fun.

-- //Shrikumar


---Original Message---
> From: Brandon Svec via NANOG 
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:20:43 -0800
> To: Martin Hannigan 
> Cc: nanog 
> Subject: Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties
> Reply-To: Brandon Svec 
> 
> I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that
> states-
> 
> The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA
> be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.
> 
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for 
> many
> years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently 
> allowing
> them to get on with it in some areas?
> 
> I don   t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as
> allowing the removal of copper. 
> 
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>
> 
> NANOG'ers;
> 
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices
> that 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with
> fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of
> unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented
> with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber
> installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It
> suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No
> power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
> 
> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property
> owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including
> elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated
> services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
> 
> Has anyone heard of this?
> What FCC rule requires this?
> 
> Thanks for any insights.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Martin
> 

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Shrikumar.H]

Does it refer to this?? Hmm

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf

ORDER
Adopted: April 28, 2010   Released: May 4, 2010 

[..snip..]

1. In this Order, we ask the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
(Joint Board) to review the Commission~s eligibility, verification, and
outreach rules for the Lifeline and Link Up universal service programs,
which currently provide discounts on telephone service for low-income
customers. Specifically, we ask the Joint Board to recommend any changes
to these aspects of the

[..snip..snip..]

Dont see any mandate, let alone about copper.

-- //Shrikumar


---Original Message---
> From: Brandon Svec via NANOG 
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:20:43 -0800
> To: Martin Hannigan 
> Cc: nanog 
> Subject: Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties
> Reply-To: Brandon Svec 
> 
> I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that
> states-
> 
> The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA
> be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.
> 
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for 
> many
> years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently 
> allowing
> them to get on with it in some areas?
> 
> I don   t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as
> allowing the removal of copper. 
> 
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>
> 
> NANOG'ers;
> 
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices
> that 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with
> fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of
> unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented
> with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber
> installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It
> suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No
> power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
> 
> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property
> owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including
> elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated
> services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
> 
> Has anyone heard of this?
> What FCC rule requires this?
> 
> Thanks for any insights.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Martin
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Patrick Clochesy]

California in particular also has more stringent rules for commercial
buildings with seismic requirements. While a nonpen mount is great, you
still have to get the service into the building somehow.

Back in 2005 when I moved to this area, I worked directly across the street
from what is now the stadium - at that time it was Great America's parkling
lot. The area still shows dead on the CA broadband map, but all we could
get was AT DSL or your typical telco circuits. This is despite being in a
very urban area in the heart of Silicon Valley, JUST up the road from the
datacenter we used at the time (Globix). We ended up having to do a
wireless P2P to the McAfee building up the road, and getting the cable from
the roof in I'm pretty sure required the contractor to x-ray the roof after
they were done which I believe was pre-stressed concrete panels.

To this day, many of those dead zones still exist. I've been to many RURAL
areas with far more consistent Internet access than Silicon Valley, and it
certainly does seem odd.

-Patrick

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:04 PM Cory Sell via NANOG  wrote:

> Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard
> of, they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>
> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>
>
> You want a specific example?
>
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a
> few weeks ago.
>
> They live here:
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already
> have with AT
>
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>
> See what service you can order to those condos.
>
> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>

Contact for Beanfield Technologies Inc (AS21949)

[Michael Zarglis via NANOG]

Been dealing with an asymmetric routing issue and have not gotten 
anywhere with their level 1 support in 2 weeks. Would really appreciate 
if there is anyone from Beanfield on this list could please reach out to 
me.


Thanks for your time,
Michael Zarglis

Re: junos config commit question

[mike+lists]

On 2/16/22 9:56 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:

You can also do:
config

commit
rollback 1
commit

And still get back to where you were before 



It is exactly this feature of the junos cli, over and above everything 
else, that really solidified junos for me as my new preferred platform 
over IOS. In my case, a central pain point had been the 'immediate 
punishment' of cli commands taking effect, the inability to 'test' 
before commit, and the inability to rollback if error. I have made some 
fat finger mistakes that required dispatching to hours away locations to 
regain administrative control for example, and while rare, these are now 
a thing of the past (as long as you are using "commit confirmed").


Mike-

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Joe Greco]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:58:21PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that
> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber.
> The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled
> elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an
> agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation
> and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs
> are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent
> for spaces used.

I have the opposite story of a commercial property where fiber was
installed, but they refused to remove the 12 pair copper, refused to
remove a massive demarc cabinet, and then threatened the property
owner that he couldn't remove it either.

Pity I didn't know that when I removed it while cleaning up the huge
mess.  And yes of course I checked that all the pairs were dead.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov

Re: junos config commit question

[Paschal Masha]

edit 
rollback 0 
commit 

"rollback 0" discards all your recent changes to the candidate configuration, 
include "delete interfaces". If you "rollback 0" then run "show | compare" no 
output will be displayed, meaning your changes have been discarded. Don't run 
"commit confirm x" when the change is "delete interfaces" 

Regards 
Paschal Masha | Engineering 
Skype ID: paschal.masha 

-Original Message- 
From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG"  
To: "Jay Hennigan"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 01:14:08 AM 
Subject: Re: junos config commit question 

Then you didn’t use “commit confirm” as in the post this replied to. 

Owen 

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 12:23, Jay Hennigan  wrote: 
> 
> On 2/16/22 09:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: 
> 
>> You can also do: 
>> config 
>>  
>> commit 
>> rollback 1 
>> commit 
> 
> Unless you're remote and  breaks your ability to reach 
> the box. Then you're hosed after the first "commit". 
> 
> -- 
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net 
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV 

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[L F]

Noted!!!



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:39 PM  wrote:

> As I posted earlier, it’s supposed to be 19-72A1.
>
> Shane
>
> > On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> >
> > On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
> >> I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked
> that states-
> >> The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that a*ll POTS Lines in
> the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.*
> >
> > Fake news. That's from 2010. Word search for "copper" returns nothing.
> >
> > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf
> >
> > --
> > Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> > Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> > 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>
-- 
  Liz ***
416.660.5456

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[sronan]

As I posted earlier, it’s supposed to be 19-72A1.

Shane

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> 
> On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
>> I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that 
>> states-
>> The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that a*ll POTS Lines in the 
>> USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.*
> 
> Fake news. That's from 2010. Word search for "copper" returns nothing.
> 
> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf
> 
> -- 
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Jay Hennigan]

On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked 
that states-


The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that a*ll POTS Lines in 
the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.*


Fake news. That's from 2010. Word search for "copper" returns nothing.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

I have to give a shout out here for Mike’s organization (Ridge Wireless).

They do provide excellent customer service and decent speeds, though they are 
sub-fiber and at somewhat of a premium/Mbps vs. terrestrial fiber solutions.

I’m currently using Ridge as my primary connectivity with Comcast as a backup. 
They have consistently over-delivered vs. promised data rates and have always 
answered any issues I bring up promptly and with great skill and knowledge.

They are a total contract from the large utility players and I cannot recommend 
them highly enough.


Owen


> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02 , Cory Sell via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
> 
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
> 
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  > wrote:
>> 
>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>> 
>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>> 
>> -Mike Lyon
>> Ridge Wireless
>> 
>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman >> > wrote:
>>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You want a specific example?
>>> 
>>> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
>>> weeks ago.
>>> 
>>> They live here:
>>> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>>> 
>>> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
>>> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
>>> have with AT
>>> 
>>> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>>> 
>>> See what service you can order to those condos.
>>> 
>>> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
>>> 
>>> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[sronan]

I believe that should be 19-72A1.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf

Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August 
2nd, 2022.

Shane

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 9:27 PM, Brandon Svec via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that 
> states-
> 
> The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA 
> be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.
> 
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>> Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many 
>> years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing 
>> them to get on with it in some areas?
>> 
>> I don’t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing 
>> the removal of copper. 
>> 
>> Brandon Svec 
>> 
>> 
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> NANOG'ers;
>>> 
>>> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 
>>> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. 
>>> The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled 
>>> elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an 
>>> agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation 
>>> and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs 
>>> are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent 
>>> for spaces used. 
>>> 
>>> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner 
>>> doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator 
>>> phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. 
>>> They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying. 
>>> 
>>> Has anyone heard of this?
>>> What FCC rule requires this?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for any insights.
>>> 
>>> Warm regards,
>>> 
>>> Martin

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[L F]

Noted

But retirees ...???

Against an Element that has its own place on the  Periodic Table of
Elements

Kind of funny how new homes now are built with blue n red Plastic tubing
for water!!

Cu is $

Ju $ayin

Perhaps a deterrent to future “anticipated” THEFT and anticipated OutAge$
Because of...



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:25 PM Paul Emmons  wrote:

> Saw this
>
>
> https://www.nojitter.com/consultant-perspectives/decommissioning-copper-gets-real
>
-- 
  Liz ***
416.660.5456

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[L F]

>
> Watching the Spot Price
>
> AIP sounds Suspicious
>
> In the Ol’ days CO’s would be broken into
> And the Cu stolen... even the Telco cutoffs disappeared!
>
> Prices are exponentially Higher now!
>
>
> H
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:17 PM Martin Hannigan 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks like its abandon in place "AIP" from the agreement.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:03 PM L F  wrote:
>>
>>> Who becomes the Beneficial Owner of the Copper once Removed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Just Curious.
>>>
>>>
>>> LF
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:01 PM Martin Hannigan 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 NANOG'ers;

 At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices
 that 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with
 fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled
 elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an
 agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation
 and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs
 are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent
 for spaces used.

 There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property
 owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator
 phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services.
 They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.

 Has anyone heard of this?
 What FCC rule requires this?

 Thanks for any insights.

 Warm regards,

 Martin

>>> --
>>>   Liz ***
>>> 416.660.5456
>>>
>> --
>   Liz ***
> 416.660.5456
>
-- 
  Liz ***
416.660.5456

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

For what a 100watt 1U box?

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:14 PM, Paul Emmons  wrote:
> 
> Do MSOs and CLEC/fiber providers require free power and space?
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 7:59 PM Martin Hannigan  > wrote:
> 
> NANOG'ers;
> 
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 
> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The 
> property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if 
> that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that 
> acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for 
> a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in 
> terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used. 
> 
> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner 
> doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, 
> alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't 
> say 911, but that would go without saying. 
> 
> Has anyone heard of this?
> What FCC rule requires this?
> 
> Thanks for any insights.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Martin

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that 
states-

The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA 
be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.

Brandon Svec 


> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec  wrote:
> 
> Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many 
> years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing 
> them to get on with it in some areas?
> 
> I don’t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing 
> the removal of copper. 
> 
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> NANOG'ers;
>> 
>> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 
>> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The 
>> property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if 
>> that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that 
>> acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for 
>> a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in 
>> terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used. 
>> 
>> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner 
>> doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator 
>> phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They 
>> didn't say 911, but that would go without saying. 
>> 
>> Has anyone heard of this?
>> What FCC rule requires this?
>> 
>> Thanks for any insights.
>> 
>> Warm regards,
>> 
>> Martin

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Paul Emmons]

Saw this

https://www.nojitter.com/consultant-perspectives/decommissioning-copper-gets-real

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Martin Hannigan]

Looks like its abandon in place "AIP" from the agreement.


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:03 PM L F  wrote:

> Who becomes the Beneficial Owner of the Copper once Removed?
>
>
> Just Curious.
>
>
> LF
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:01 PM Martin Hannigan 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> NANOG'ers;
>>
>> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that
>> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber.
>> The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled
>> elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an
>> agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation
>> and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs
>> are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent
>> for spaces used.
>>
>> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property
>> owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator
>> phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services.
>> They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
>>
>> Has anyone heard of this?
>> What FCC rule requires this?
>>
>> Thanks for any insights.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
> --
>   Liz ***
> 416.660.5456
>

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many years. 
Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing them to 
get on with it in some areas?

I don’t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing the 
removal of copper. 

Brandon Svec 


> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> NANOG'ers;
> 
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 
> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The 
> property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if 
> that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that 
> acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for 
> a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in 
> terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used. 
> 
> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner 
> doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, 
> alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't 
> say 911, but that would go without saying. 
> 
> Has anyone heard of this?
> What FCC rule requires this?
> 
> Thanks for any insights.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Martin

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Paul Emmons]

Do MSOs and CLEC/fiber providers require free power and space?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 7:59 PM Martin Hannigan  wrote:

>
> NANOG'ers;
>
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that
> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber.
> The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled
> elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an
> agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation
> and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs
> are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent
> for spaces used.
>
> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property
> owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator
> phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services.
> They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
>
> Has anyone heard of this?
> What FCC rule requires this?
>
> Thanks for any insights.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Martin
>

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[L F]

Who becomes the Beneficial Owner of the Copper once Removed?


Just Curious.


LF

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:01 PM Martin Hannigan  wrote:

>
> NANOG'ers;
>
> At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that
> 'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber.
> The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled
> elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an
> agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation
> and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs
> are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent
> for spaces used.
>
> There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property
> owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator
> phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services.
> They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
>
> Has anyone heard of this?
> What FCC rule requires this?
>
> Thanks for any insights.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Martin
>
-- 
  Liz ***
416.660.5456

LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Martin Hannigan]

NANOG'ers;

At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that
'copper  lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber.
The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled
elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an
agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation
and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs
are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent
for spaces used.

There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner
doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator
phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services.
They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.

Has anyone heard of this?
What FCC rule requires this?

Thanks for any insights.

Warm regards,

Martin

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Dave Taht]

The future belongs to wireless. Hopefully not 5g to any huge extent.

If it helps any, wiline in the bay area has been delivering fixed
wireless services for many, many years, 'round here. There's another
technology - free space optics - that can get stuff across the street.
I played around a lot with early versions of this:

http://www.koruza.net/

Then I assume spacex will also market their 10-20Gbit laser links on
earth at some point. In atmosphere, I cannot hazard a guess, but more
than 1km seems feasible, even in fog.

There is a ton of good wireless gear out, or coming out, if you can
find someone to point it at. The ubiquiti 60ghz AP's base latency is
0.7ms from AP to customer. Ideal max range is about 1.5km to account
for rain fade. Bandwidth is 1Gbps per AP, so 300-500Mbps symmetrical
plans are possible depending on the oversubscription ratio and how
many subs per AP.
60GHz PtMP can do 950/950Mbps on the first bandwidth test, with <1ms
(idle, have not tested for bufferbloat, too scared to) latency.
There's up to 15 subscribers per AP. The APs have 30 degree beamwidth,
so up to 180 subs per tower site would be possible. The main catch is
cost and range. $400 per customer radio (3X cost of most CPEs).

802.11AX 5GHz PtMP products from Mimosa and Cambium will be
interesting competing products at 1/2 that cost per CPE.  Seeing
870Mbps and 4ms latency at 9km with AX gear. I worry a lot more about
bufferbloat on AX than I do on the above product, but have tested none
of it.
Mimosa's APs are due out soon. Cambium's AX products will be split
between 5GHz and 6GHz versions, and expected Q4 this year.

Last, though I've not played with 'em yet... I'm told tarana is
delivering some crazy performance, definately the best I've ever heard
of.

Price is 13,000 per AP, $600 per CPE, and a few dollars per month per
CPE, which is why many are waiting for AX.

The future belongs to wireless.




On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:19 PM Cory Sell via NANOG  wrote:
>
> See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
> easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for 
> said service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
> management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no 
> sway over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by 
> the property manager.
>
> If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single 
> customer, I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, 
> I’d be very curious to still see them. :)
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>
> Depends on many factors…
>
> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>
> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
>
>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>
> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
>
>
> You want a specific example?
>
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
> weeks ago.
>
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
> with AT
>
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>
> See what service you can order to those condos.
>
> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

Well, if the HOA allowed us to install an antenna for the single customer, then 
our standard rates would apply (google Ridge Wireless, if you want to see 
pricing, i don’t want my NANOG messages to seem spammy). 

Another problem with condos that were built before the 2000’s is inside wiring. 
Likely going to be wired with something like Cat3 and old RG59 coax. 

I’m not saying i don’t agree with the sentiment of this thread. Silicon Valley 
does have many under-served areas that ATT and Comcast haven’t, or won’t, 
build-out decent service. 

-Mike



> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:16, Cory Sell  wrote:
> 
>  See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
> easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for 
> said service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
> management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no 
> sway over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by 
> the property manager.
> 
> If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single 
> customer, I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, 
> I’d be very curious to still see them. :)
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>> Depends on many factors…
>> 
>> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
>> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
>> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
>> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>> 
>> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>> 
>> -Mike 
>> 
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
 
>>>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>>> 
>>> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>>> 
>>> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
>>> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
>>> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
 If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
 
 Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
 
 -Mike Lyon
 Ridge Wireless
 
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
>>  wrote:
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see 
>> the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
> 
> 
> You want a specific example?
> 
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a 
> few weeks ago.
> 
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
> 
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
> 
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
> have with AT
> 
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
> 
> See what service you can order to those condos.
> 
> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
> 
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for said 
service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no sway 
over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by the 
property manager.

If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single customer, 
I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, I’d be very 
curious to still see them. :)

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:

> Depends on many factors…
>
> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>
> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>
> -Mike
>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
>
>>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>>
>> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>>
>> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
>> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
>> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>>
>>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>>>
>>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>>>
>>> -Mike Lyon
>>> Ridge Wireless
>>>
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>>>
 

 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
 wrote:

> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

 You want a specific example?

 Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a 
 few weeks ago.

 They live here:
 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295

 Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.

 I dug and dug, and called different companies.
 The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
 have with AT

 Go ahead. Try it for yourself.

 See what service you can order to those condos.

 Heart of Silicon Valley.

 Worse connectivity than many rural areas. :(

 Matt

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Ray Van Dolson via NANOG]

Infrapedia says there is Zayo fiber across the street to the south.  Guessing a 
DIA circuit might be a budget buster though.

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Petach
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:47 PM
To: Josh Luthman 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".


You want a specific example?

Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
weeks ago.

They live here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
 
[google.com]

Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.

I dug and dug, and called different companies.
The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
with AT

Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.

See what service you can order to those condos.

Heart of Silicon Valley.

Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(

Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

Depends on many factors…

If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put in 
delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the subscriber. 
Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is structured with 
the HOA/property management company.

Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.

-Mike 

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
> 
>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
> 
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
> 
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>> 
>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>> 
>> -Mike Lyon
>> Ridge Wireless
>> 
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
 wrote:
 I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
 generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You want a specific example?
>>> 
>>> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
>>> weeks ago.
>>> 
>>> They live here:
>>> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>>> 
>>> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>>> 
>>> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
>>> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
>>> have with AT
>>> 
>>> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>>> 
>>> See what service you can order to those condos.
>>> 
>>> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
>>> 
>>> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…

What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?

Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas require 
people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:

> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> You want a specific example?
>>
>> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
>> weeks ago.
>>
>> They live here:
>> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>>
>> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>>
>> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
>> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
>> have with AT
>>
>> Go ahead. Try it for yourself.
>>
>> See what service you can order to those condos.
>>
>> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>>
>> Worse connectivity than many rural areas. :(
>>
>> Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)

Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!

-Mike Lyon
Ridge Wireless

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
> 
> 
> You want a specific example?
> 
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
> weeks ago.
> 
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
> 
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
> 
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
> with AT
> 
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
> 
> See what service you can order to those condos.
> 
> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
> 
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
> 
> Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Matthew Petach]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>


You want a specific example?

Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few
weeks ago.

They live here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295

Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.

I dug and dug, and called different companies.
The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already
have with AT

Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.

See what service you can order to those condos.

Heart of Silicon Valley.

Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(

Matt

Re: junos config commit question

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Then you didn’t use “commit confirm” as in the post this replied to. 

Owen


> On Feb 16, 2022, at 12:23, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> 
> On 2/16/22 09:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> You can also do:
>> config
>> 
>> commit
>> rollback 1
>> commit
> 
> Unless you're remote and  breaks your ability to reach 
> the box. Then you're hosed after the first "commit".
> 
> -- 
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 13:13, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> 
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

There are many such parts of San Jose. How specific do you want? Most of the 
residential areas served by the Evergreen central office specific enough for 
you?

My house specific enough for you? (No, I won’t be posting my address to NANOG). 

> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a 
> lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near 
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status. 

My complaint here is that the ILECs are incentivized by USF$$ to put their 
resources into rural, ignoring mezzo-urban and sub-urban customers. So I don’t 
think your CLEC rant has much to do with that. 

> This makes competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of 
> operating one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that 
> claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain 
> correlation which could potentially be causation.

I won’t deny that it could be a factor in the overall lack of competition and I 
agree that process is long overdue for a tuneup. However, it’s not the root 
cause of the repatriation of customer dollars from mezzo-urban and sub-urban 
areas into rural infrastructure investment to the exclusion of investment in 
those areas. 

Frankly, the simple solution to that problem would be to require that any 
[IC]LEC receiving USF dollars provide a level of service to their USF donor 
customers that is at least on par with the service they provide to their USF 
beneficiary customers. 

Owen

> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> 
>> 
 On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman  
 wrote:
 
 Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
 complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 
 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had 
 better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer 
 service) for years.
 
 >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
 >street have no option but slow DSL.
 
 Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>> 
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon 
>>> valley alone.
>>> 
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what 
>>> most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was 
>>> close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider 
>>> that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I 
>>> don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but 
>>> there's fiber there now.
>> 
>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s 
>> literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of 
>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 
>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>> 
>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 
>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>> 
>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m 
>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual 
>> data.
>> 
>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that utilities 
>> tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban and sub-urban 
>> parts of America…
>>  1.  USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>  2.  Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, 
>> Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
>> dwellings.
>>  3.  Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently 
>> and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in 
>> order to boost sales prices.
>> 
>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of 
>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans 
>> underserved.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG  
 wrote:
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even 
 a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows 
 how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G 
 fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  
 Houses could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park 
 across the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is 
 prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.
 
 There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.  
 Of course, this is 

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tony Wicks]

It is really quite odd that arguably the heart of high tech in the world has 
such poor coverage. I remember going on a visit there 10+ years ago and being 
shocked that the head of the development team at the company I was visiting had 
the best available which was a 2meg cable plan with a data cap while here in 
New Zealand we had adsl/vdsl to the curb unlimited for about $60USD. Then about 
2 years ago we moved to 1G/500 GPON unlimited for a retail price of about 
$60USD. For the last year at home I’ve had unlimited 4Gb/s symmetric XGSPON for 
a retail price of around $105USD/month. This Fibre coverage covers something 
like 70% of the country and is rapidly rising. I would have thought Silicon 
Valley would be years ahead of a small country in the south pacific (we have to 
pay for all that sub sea connectivity to the USA and Australia as well, I have 
routers in San Jose and LA connected to Auckland). Something has gone horribly 
wrong to produce this outcome I would suggest.

 

 

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Michael 
Thomas
Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2022 10:47 am
To: Josh Luthman 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

 

 

On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

What is the embarrassment?

That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the 
times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada before 
Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't installed the 
NID. 

Mike

 

 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

Crap, slow internet options in the heart of Silicon Valley, I think..

https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov

You can look around the billion dollar football stadium and international
airport and see neighborhoods with 1-3Mbps only.


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:38 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> What is the embarrassment?
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
>> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
>> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
>> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
>> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
>> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
>> potentially be causation.
>>
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
>> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
>> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
>> It's really an embarrassment.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>>> for years.
>>>
>>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>>
>>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
>>> silicon valley alone.
>>>
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>>> but there's fiber there now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>>
>>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>>
>>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
>>> I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have
>>> actual data.
>>>
>>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>>> dwellings.
>>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>>> order to boost sales prices.
>>>
>>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>>> underserved.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
 even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
 knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
 fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
 could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
 the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
 high to get fiber, etc.

 There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider
 too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new
 services are continually being added and upgraded.
 *Brandon Svec*



 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher 
> wrote:
>
>> Can you provide examples?
>>>
>>
>> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

But the location has an internet service.  Is it embarrassing because it
should have fiber or "better connectivity" because of its location?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> What is the embarrassment?
>
> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada
> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't
> installed the NID.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
>> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
>> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
>> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
>> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
>> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
>> potentially be causation.
>>
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
>> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
>> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
>> It's really an embarrassment.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>>> for years.
>>>
>>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>>
>>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
>>> silicon valley alone.
>>>
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>>> but there's fiber there now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>>
>>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>>
>>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
>>> I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have
>>> actual data.
>>>
>>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>>> dwellings.
>>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>>> order to boost sales prices.
>>>
>>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>>> underserved.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
 even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
 knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
 fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
 could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
 the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
 high to get fiber, etc.

 There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider
 too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new
 services are continually being added and upgraded.
 *Brandon Svec*



 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Michael Thomas]

On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

What is the embarrassment?


That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind 
the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra 
Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just 
haven't installed the NID.


Mike




On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:


On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to
see the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain
this has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily
complicated and near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC
status.  This makes competition pretty much impossible and makes
the costs of operating one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously
not going to be one that claims that government is good or bad,
just pointing out a certain correlation which could potentially
be causation.


Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas,
but they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've
ever heard. The only other real alternative is things like
Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's really an embarrassment.

Mike



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:




On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
 wrote:

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is
someone complaining about the coax connection is "only 100
meg when I pay for 200 meg". Comcast was the most hated
company and yet they factually had better speeds (possibly
in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for
years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the
houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such
examples in silicon valley alone.


I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data,
where it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor
speeds.  The only one that was close was Jared and I'm
pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider that in
town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why
that matters, but there's fiber there now.


Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not
in town”. It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the
US with a population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010
census) and a population density of 5,642 people/sq. mile
(compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the
same list at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and
8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most
information. I’m sure this situation exists in other states
as well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives
that utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for
the mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense
arrays, Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment
complexes, or single family dwellings.
3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very
recently and where the developers would literally pay the
utilities to pre-deploy in order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual
deployment of broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities
of average Americans underserved.

Owen





On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG
 wrote:

What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on
this list with even a passing knowledge of the broadband
landscape in the United States knows how hit or miss it
can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber
and the houses across the street have no option but slow
DSL.  Houses could have reliable high speed cable
internet, but the office park across the field has no
such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices
of provider too.  Of course, this is literally changing
by the minute as new services are continually being
added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman
 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

What is the embarrassment?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
> potentially be causation.
>
> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they
> are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only
> other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's
> really an embarrassment.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>> for years.
>>
>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>
>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>
>>
>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
>> valley alone.
>>
>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>> but there's fiber there now.
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>
>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>
>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m
>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual
>> data.
>>
>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>> dwellings.
>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>> order to boost sales prices.
>>
>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>> underserved.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
>>> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
>>> knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
>>> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
>>> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
>>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
>>> high to get fiber, etc.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider
>>> too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new
>>> services are continually being added and upgraded.
>>> *Brandon Svec*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> Can you provide examples?
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
>
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of

IMPORTANT NOTICE - Retirement of ARIN Non-Authenticated IRR rescheduled for 4 April 2022

[John Curran]

NANOGers -

An important reminder – On 4 April 2022, ARIN's non-authenticated Internet 
Routing Registry (IRR) will be retired.

Please review the attached notice for details, and do not hesitate to contact 
ARIN if you have any questions about this transition or need assistance.

I ask that you do not hesitate to forward this notice to any others you know 
that are potentially unaware & impacted by this important transition.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Begin forwarded message:

From: ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>>
Subject: [arin-announce] UPDATE: Retirement of ARIN Non-Authenticated IRR 
rescheduled for 4 April 2022
Date: 28 January 2022 at 9:01:07 PM GMT+4
To: "arin-annou...@arin.net" 
mailto:arin-annou...@arin.net>>

This announcement is to inform you that the retirement of the ARIN 
non-authenticated Internet Routing Registry (IRR) has been rescheduled to 4 
April 2022 at 12:00 PM EST. After this time, users will no longer be able to 
create, update, or delete records in the ARIN-NONAUTH database, and the 
ARIN-NONAUTH data stream will no longer be available in Near Real Time 
Mirroring (NRTM) or via FTP or Whois Port 43. This date change is being made in 
order to ensure that the first day after retirement does not fall on a Friday.

The following information is from the initial announcement:

ARIN has been engaged in a multi-year project to create and deploy a new and 
improved Internet Routing Registry (IRR). As a result of these efforts, ARIN 
now provides users with the ability to create, update, and delete objects in 
ARIN’s authenticated IRR database using ARIN Online or ARIN’s RESTful API. 
Unfortunately, use of ARIN’s previous non-authenticated email-based IRR service 
actually increased after ARIN released its authenticated IRR, in opposition to 
the outcome ARIN anticipated when improving its IRR.

On 8 February 2021, ARIN held a consultation to solicit input on the retirement 
of ARIN’s non-authenticated email-based IRR service. This retirement was 
originally scheduled for 30 September 2021. Based on community input, the 
proposed date for the ARIN-NONAUTH retirement was delayed to 31 March 2022 to 
allow more transition time for users. We also notified by email Points of 
Contact (POCs) of organizations who have objects in the ARIN-NONAUTH database 
of the retirement date and offered them our assistance with the transition.

If you have questions about this transition or need assistance, you can contact 
us by:

• submitting an Ask ARIN ticket or chat with us using your ARIN Online account
• emailing the Routing Security Team at 
routing.secur...@arin.net
• contacting the Registration Services Help Desk by phone Monday through 
Friday, 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET at +1.703.227.0660

Regards,

Brad Gorman
Senior Product Owner, Routing Security
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Michael Thomas]

On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see 
the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".


On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this 
has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated 
and near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes 
competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating 
one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that 
claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain 
correlation which could potentially be causation.


Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but 
they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. 
The only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a 
WISP. It's really an embarrassment.


Mike



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:




On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
 wrote:

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is
someone complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg
when I pay for 200 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and
yet they factually had better speeds (possibly in part to their
subjectively terrible customer service) for years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
across the street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
silicon valley alone.


I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where
it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The
only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw
the map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but
again, there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember if he
actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber
there now.


Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in
town”. It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with
a population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a
population density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4
Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same
list at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most
information. I’m sure this situation exists in other states as
well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the
mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single
family dwellings.
3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently
and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to
pre-deploy in order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment
of broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average
Americans underserved.

Owen





On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG
 wrote:

What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this
list with even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape
in the United States knows how hit or miss it can be.  An
apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could
have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park
across the field has no such choice because the buildout cost
is prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of
provider too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the
minute as new services are continually being added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman
 wrote:

OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher
 wrote:

Can you provide examples?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG


Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living
just outside Ann Arbor, MI, so he had to start his
own CLEC.

I have friends in significantly more rural areas than
he lives in ( Niagara and Orleans county NYS ,
between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a
lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
potentially be causation.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
> for years.
>
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the
> street have no option but slow DSL.
>
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>
>
> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
> valley alone.
>
> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
> but there's fiber there now.
>
>
> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>
> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>
> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m
> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual
> data.
>
> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
> and sub-urban parts of America…
> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not areas
> of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family dwellings.
> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
> order to boost sales prices.
>
> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
> underserved.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
>> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
>> knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
>> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
>> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
>> high to get fiber, etc.
>>
>> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.
>> Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
>> continually being added and upgraded.
>> *Brandon Svec*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>>
 Can you provide examples?
>

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG

 Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
 Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

 I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
 Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
 have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
 Niagara Falls.

 This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there
 is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct
 example as you asked for.

 On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 

Re: junos config commit question

[Andrew Fried]

that's what the "commit confirm xxx" command is for. :)

Andrew

On 2/16/22 3:23 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:

On 2/16/22 09:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


You can also do:
config

commit
rollback 1
commit


Unless you're remote and  breaks your ability to 
reach the box. Then you're hosed after the first "commit".




--
Andrew Fried
andrew.fr...@gmail.com

Re: junos config commit question

[Jay Hennigan]

On 2/16/22 09:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


You can also do:
config

commit
rollback 1
commit


Unless you're remote and  breaks your ability to 
reach the box. Then you're hosed after the first "commit".


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:13 , Aaron Wendel  wrote:
> 
> The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural America, 
> a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm that's 10 miles 
> from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad band is a basic 
> service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her porn is important 
> enough to subsidize.

I’m not opposed to subsidizing Grandma’s porn in rural America… I’m opposed to 
doing it to the exclusion of getting equivalent service in mezzo-urban and 
sub-urban America.

> If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a 
> population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make from a 
> financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local red tape, 
> fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers agreeing not to 
> overbuild each other and incentives given by said large providers to 
> developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.

If they’re actually making such agreements, wouldn’t that violate the Sherman 
anti-trust act? (Yes, I know that proving it is a whole other matter).

In actual fact, the reality is a bit more sinister… Providers realize that they 
can milk the USF cow for many more $/cost than they would get deploying those 
same resources to build out mezzo-urban and sub-urban areas, even though the 
business case can be made.

As such, USF does, actually, actively detract from those build-outs… So for 
years, I’ve been subsidizing Grandma’s porn habit while I can’t get even half 
the level of service she does, even though in an actual market economy, it 
would make far more sense to build here.

> Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit 
> fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT  
> Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they don't 
> get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the developers to 
> keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure costs and/or paying 
> the developments and complexes a kickback for every subscriber. Now the FCC 
> says you can't do that but they get around it by altering the language in 
> their agreements.

Yeah, I’m sure there’s no shortage of shady utility deals around, to preserve 
their monopolies as well.

I think a lot of this could get solved if we started limiting or even 
prohibiting vertical integration (prohibit players in layers 0-2 from playing 
in layers 3-7 and vice versa). Arguing over where that dividing line should be, 
exactly (my vote is actually between L1 and L2) is a detail to hash out once we 
get general consensus that vertical integration is harmful.

Up to L1, you have “natural monopolies”… It’s often difficult to cost-justify 
the infrastructure unless you have more than 50% of homes passed as customers. 
Obviously, it’s impossible for more than one provider to achieve that, hence 
natural monopoly. Even in the best cases, you end up with natural oligopolies 
(a very small number of competitors and a distorted market as a result).

I’m a big fan of having civil society own the base infrastructure operated 
either by the local government directly or by awarding an operations contract 
to an independent contractor. Make that infrastructure link end-sites to 
serving centers which have essentially super-sized meet me rooms and colocation 
facilities which are available to all service providers on an equal basis 
(nobody gets sweetheart deals, everyone pays the same unit price for what they 
get) has the following effects:

+   Lowers the barrier to competition for services
+   Puts the monopoly in position of being a B2B service only which 
increases their accountability
(a small number of business customers wield a much 
greater power against said monopoly
than a large group of consumers most of whom lack 
detailed technical knowledge)

Obviously, the existing entrenched interests are thoroughly opposed to any such 
design because it strips them of their power. However, if we can start 
executing this model, I think it would have roughly the same effect on the 
current monopolies as Lyft,Uber, et. al. have had on the Taxi industry.

While the cab medallion holders hated it, I’m pretty sure virtually everyone 
else has been celebrating the results.

Owen

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Aaron Wendel]

The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural 
America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm 
that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad 
band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her 
porn is important enough to subsidize.


If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a 
population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make 
from a financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local 
red tape, fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers 
agreeing not to overbuild each other and incentives given by said large 
providers to developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.


Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit 
fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT  
Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they 
don't get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the 
developers to keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure 
costs and/or paying the developments and complexes a kickback for every 
subscriber. Now the FCC says you can't do that but they get around it by 
altering the language in their agreements.


Aaron


On 2/16/2022 11:52 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:



On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
 wrote:


Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 
200 meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually 
had better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible 
customer service) for years.


>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses 
across the street have no option but slow DSL.


Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in 
silicon valley alone.


I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where 
it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The 
only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the 
map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, 
there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember if he actually got his 
CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.


Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. 
It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a 
population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population 
density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 
3,632/Sq. Mi.).


Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list 
at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.


I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. 
I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t 
have actual data.


The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that 
utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the 
mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…

1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not 
areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
dwellings.
3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and 
where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy 
in order to boost sales prices.


Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of 
broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans 
underserved.


Owen





On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
 wrote:


What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list
with even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the
United States knows how hit or miss it can be.  An
apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could have
reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is
prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of
provider too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the
minute as new services are continually being added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman
 wrote:

OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher
 wrote:

Can you provide examples?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG


Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just
outside Ann Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

I have 

Re: junos config commit question

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)]

Owen DeLong writes:

> top
> rollback

I am *sure* I tried exactly that but it wasn't working as I expected.
But maybe I was just imagining things.  And somehow I completely
missed the 'rollback 0' variant while plowing through the
documentation.

Thanks everyone for assisting the blind ;-)

--lyndon

Re: junos config commit question

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> 
> 
> If I skip the egg timer, then I *will* forget, and it will automatically roll 
> back. One of my largest annoyances with the Juniper CLI (other than the fact 
> that it won't format large numbers into a human readable format in things 
> like 'monitor interface traffic') is that it beeps the terminal *after* it 
> times out the commit. 
> 
> Gee, thanks for letting me know you just blew away all of my changes... 
> couldn't you have done that 1 minute before automatically reverting?!!!

At least you can get them back easily…

configure
rollback 1
commit

It turns out that when Juniper does a rollback from a commit confirm, it treats 
both the commit confirm and the rollback as full configuration commits.

Owen

Re: junos config commit question

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 11, 2022, at 14:18 , Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) 
>  wrote:
> 
> On an EX4300 switch running JunOS 14.1 let's imagine I typed
> 
>   config
>   delete interfaces
> 
> before coming to my senses.  How am I supposed to back out of that
> mess?  

top
rollback

> For the life of me, after a week of reading the 3000 page
> reference manual, and endless DuckDuckGoing, I cannot see a simple
> way of just abandoning the commit.  I've got to be missing something
> stunningly obvious here because it's unthinkable that this functionality
> doesn't exist.  Help?!?

You can also do:
config

commit
rollback 1
commit

And still get back to where you were before 

> The only way out I can see is to drop into the shell, make an
> uncompressed copy of juniper.conf.gz, then pop back into the config
> editor and load that over top of the editor's config view.  Surely
> there's a saner way of dealing with this.

Much.

Owen

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 
> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better 
> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for 
> years.
> 
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
> >street have no option but slow DSL.
> 
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?

There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon 
valley alone.

> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what 
> most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was 
> close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider 
> that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I 
> don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's 
> fiber there now.

Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s 
literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of 
1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 
people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 
3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m sure 
this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that utilities 
tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban and sub-urban 
parts of America…
1.  USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.  Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, 
Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
dwellings.
3.  Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently 
and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in 
order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of broadband 
improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans underserved.

Owen



> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG  > wrote:
> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even a 
> passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows how 
> hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and 
> the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could have 
> reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the field has 
> no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to get fiber, 
> etc.
> 
> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.  Of 
> course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are 
> continually being added and upgraded.
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  > wrote:
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG 
> 
> 
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor, 
> MI, so he had to start his own CLEC. 
> 
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara 
> and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the 
> same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara 
> Falls. 
> 
> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a 
> long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as 
> you asked for. 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> >off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 
> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
> >> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
> >> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> > 
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband 
> > connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the 
> > back of the 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Parts of San Jose are another example… The so-called “Capital of Silicon 
Valley” has many neighborhoods where
fiber is less than 100 yards away and yet fiber services are unavailable. In 
many of those locations, DSL is limited
to about 1.5M/384k (and that on good days).

This is true of many other bay area cities and several other mezzo-urban and 
sub-urban areas in California.

Owen


> On Feb 11, 2022, at 05:41 , Tom Beecher  wrote:
> 
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG 
> 
> 
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor, 
> MI, so he had to start his own CLEC. 
> 
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara 
> and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the 
> same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara 
> Falls. 
> 
> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a 
> long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as 
> you asked for. 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> >off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 
> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
> >> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
> >> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> > 
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband 
> > connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the 
> > back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
> > 
> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
> > "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in 
> > rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
> > 
> > Mark.
> 
> ROFLMAO…
> 
> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know 
> at least have GPON or better.
> 
> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to 
> be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
> 
> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
> treatment no matter what we do.
> 
> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Owen
> 

Microsoft express routes contact

[Craig]

Could someone from Microsoft please contact me off line please. We have had
tickets opened for quite a while now but the ticket seems to be not getting
to the correct team.

We have a customer who has been trying to get their app working, we have an
express route peering directly to MS, however we are NOT receiving the more
specific prefix over express routes. This is creating issues w/ the app
working due to the FW involved.

The Azure Host IPv4 is:
52.158.246.45



and here are the networks we are learning over express routes:

52.158.0.0/17
52.158.160.0/20
52.158.176.0/20
52.158.192.0/19
52.159.64.0/18

However we are receiving a prefix over our ISP where the route is being
used.

I have not been able to find this specific host in the Azure route table
dump that is posted on the MS web site.

cpv