ZTE GPON Configuration
Good Morning All, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question or not, so here it goes. I am looking for someone that has experience programming a ZTE GPON OLT and setting up some ONU profiles to go with it. I have just about everything figured out except some issues with the sip configuration and updating things like the country code so that it plays the right dial tone. I guess really I am looking for a ZTE GPON expert. I am willing to pay for anyone's time I really just either need some CLI examples or just to pick someone's brain. Any help that could be provided is greatly appreciated. Please contact me off list. Thanks! DJ Anderson Techwebhosting.com dj at techwebhosting.com
Re: Access to nanog.cluepon.net
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
I'd like to update some material on nanog.cluepon.net (not very responsive
to HTTP requests right now) and my account doesn't work anymore. I reached
out to Richard S. but have not heard back from him - anyone else here who
has admin access and can set me up again?
*.cluepon.net { nanog, cisco, juniper } still down for me...
Rubens
RE: Greenfield ISP (In January)
Does anyone beside Cisco do MAP? Brocade, Juniper, Huawei? Thank you, - Nich Warren -Original Message- From: Tore Anderson [mailto:t...@fud.no] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 12:15 AM To: Baldur Norddahl Cc: Nicholas Warren; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January) * Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com The high tech solution is stuff like MAP where you move the cost out to the CPE. But then you need to control the CPE - if you have that then great. You would still want to sell a non-NAT (and MAP is NAT) to users that require a public IPv4 address, so you still need to go dual stack or use some tunnelling for that. Hi Baldur, MAP is *not* NAT; that's what's so neat about it. The users do get a public IPv4 address (or prefix!) routed to their CPE's WAN interface, towards which they can accept inbound unsolicited connections. The public IPv4 address could be port-restricted if the operator wants address sharing, but it does not have to be. You could do both at the same time, e.g., giving your premium users a /32 or /28, while the standard subscription includes a /32 with 4k ports. I will grant you that MAP-T performs NAT (i.e., protocol translation) internally, but the translations that happens when a packet enters the MAP domain are reversed when it exits. So the IPv4 addresses are transparent end-to-end. MAP-E (and lw4o6 for that matter), on the other hand, has no form of NAT anywhere. (Unless you count the NAPT44 that sits between the subscriber's RFC1918 LAN segment and the CPE's WAN interface, but that's not exactly something that's unique to MAP.) Nicholas: If I were you, before going down the 464XLAT route, I'd first look closely at these technologies, in the order given: 1) MAP (because it is fully stateless) 2) lw4o6 (because it is mostly stateless, i.e., no session tracking) 3) DS-Lite (which, like 464XLAT, is stateful, but you'll have way more CPEs to choose from than with 464XLAT, which is mostly for mobile) Tore
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: I think you've offered some really bad advice here Bill. As I said, there are lots of people who _think_ it doesn’t work. And then there are people who’ve actually done it, and know better. Besides, you seem to not have read what I actually posted. In which the advice I gave was _not_ to do anycast TCP, so as to avoid having to deal with people who _think_ they know something, and are excessively verbal about it. Which is tedious. Perhaps better advice would have been to go ahead and do it, solving his problem, but to just not post to NANOG about it, so he doesn’t have to listen to people who think they know better telling him that what he’s doing isn’t possible. Bumblebees, flight, etc. -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon… …which is one of the reasons why I suggested that he do anycast DNS (presumably using a DNS service provider) rather than anycast SMTP (presumably using himself) anyway. So, regardless of how much you’re rolling your eyes, we’re saying the same thing. We’re just being testy about the details. -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: I think you've offered some really bad advice here Bill. As I said, there are lots of people who _think_ it doesn’t work. And then there are people who’ve actually done it, and know better. Uh huh. The numbers are clear: 99.99% of the time it works. The other 0.01% of the time you're screwed and had better pray the user is one of the ones you can afford to lose. Unicast TCP breaks too, but it has the virtue of being fixable 100% of the time. Besides, you seem to not have read what I actually posted. In which the advice I gave was _not_ to do anycast TCP, so as to avoid having to deal with people who _think_ they know something Just because I rolled my eyes so hard my vision blurred doesn't mean I failed to read your comment. Perhaps better advice would have been to go ahead and do it, solving his problem, but to just not post to NANOG about it, so he doesn’t have to listen to people who think they know better telling him that what he’s doing isn’t possible. If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon, even if it was a sound plan. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
Uh huh. The numbers are clear: 99.99% of the time it works. The other 0.01% of the time you're screwed and had better pray the user is one of the ones you can afford to lose. Unicast TCP breaks too, but it has the virtue of being fixable 100% of the time. I love the wry humor on the nanog list. R's, John PS: If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. Assuming he has his own address space, why couldn't he just tell them what the IPs are and ask them to announce it, like any other customer does?
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:49 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: William Herrin wrote: If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon, even if it was a sound plan. Anyone having /24 can start hosting business with 255*N anycast servers. Masataka Ohta I donÿÿt think thatÿÿs quite trueÿÿ I think you will find that 254*N is probably the best theoretical Max with just a /24 and that more likely, youÿÿll need some hosts on that subnet that donÿÿt necessarily provide anycast services bringing the practical limit somewhat lower. Of course, if you have what you need to do 255, you can probably actually do 256. Advertise the /24, internally route 256 /32s to the devices that service those IPs on one or more networks numbered out of other IP ranges. The machines all need unique unicast IPs anyway. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
William Herrin wrote: If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon, even if it was a sound plan. Anyone having /24 can start hosting business with 255*N anycast servers. Masataka Ohta
Unified Layer contact
Anyone on here from Unified Layer? Having an issue with a small ISP I help out occasionally. Some of their IP Space can reach a hosted web server, but their other prefixes cannot reach the destination. Traceroute from working IP space to destination web server (a bank) : 15 162-144-240-55.unifiedlayer.com (162.144.240.55) [AS 46606] 68 msec 162-144-240-43.unifiedlayer.com (162.144.240.43) [AS 46606] 68 msec 68 msec 16 grandsouth.com (162.144.109.184) [AS 46606] 76 msec 76 msec 72 msec From non-working IP space: 15 162-144-240-51.unifiedlayer.com (162.144.240.51) [AS 46606] 80 msec 162-144-240-43.unifiedlayer.com (162.144.240.43) [AS 46606] 80 msec 162-144-240-47.unifiedlayer.com (162.144.240.47) [AS 46606] 84 msec 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * We're not a customer of Unified Layer whom the bank uses for hosting, not getting much help via normal channels. Thanks, Chuck
[NANOG-announce] NANOG On The Road Comes to Herndon!!
We are very excited to be holding the next NOTR event in the great city of Herndon, VA next Tuesday, and we invite you to join us! Are you interested in Internet networking/peering? Do you work at a colocation, hosting or data center facility? Are you a provider of hardware/software solutions for the Internet industry? If so, the NANOG On The Road https://www.nanog.org/meetings/road7/home Herndon event is perfect for you! Date: June 23, 2015 Time: Registration Desk opens at 8:30am and Program is from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Location: Westin Dulles Airport Hotel https://www.nanog.org/meetings/road7/hotel - 2520 Wasser Terrace, Herndon, VA 20171 The FREE to attend event is open for registration. Register Now! https://www.cvent.com/events/notr-herndon-va/registration-8c87c541134e4d2eb39f3efde090a2c8.aspx The agenda https://www.nanog.org/meetings/road7/agenda is posted - topics to be discussed include: - Recent Future Developments in DNS Security - International Network Supply, Traffic Pricing - DNSSEC RPKI - High fibre-coaxial networks - Optical Networking Tutorial - IPv6 Tutorial - BGP Tutorial If you are, or will be, in the Herndon area, we invite you to attend. And don’t forget to share the invitation with your colleagues or others you feel may benefit from attending. Make NANOG On The Road your first step toward learning how you can take the wheel and steer the future of the Internet. Learn more about On The Road events here https://www.nanog.org/meetings/road/home. Feel free to contact us at nanog-supp...@nanog.org mailto:nanog-supp...@nanog.org if you have any questions. Regards, Valerie Valerie Wittkop NANOG Program Director Tel: +1 866 902 1336, ext 103 ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:49 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: William Herrin wrote: If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon, even if it was a sound plan. Anyone having /24 can start hosting business with 255*N anycast servers. Masataka Ohta I don’t think that’s quite true… I think you will find that 254*N is probably the best theoretical Max with just a /24 and that more likely, you’ll need some hosts on that subnet that don’t necessarily provide anycast services bringing the practical limit somewhat lower. Of course, if you have what you need to do 255, you can probably actually do 256. Owen
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
Any luck on a DNS based solution? On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when one site goes down. My solution will be to place a load balancer in a hosting site (virtual, of course) and have it provide HA. But what about HA for the LB? At first glance anycasting would seem to be a great idea but there is a problem of broken sessions when routes change. Have any of you seen something like this work in the wild? -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:07:22PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: What about IPv6? We have a plan! We plan to be dead before customers demand IPv6. I am pretty sure the authors are still alive(?). and customer demand for ipv6 still holds strong, right? Does seem to be on the uptick! It's certainly stronger than it has *ever* been before. - Matt -- I am cow, hear me moo, I weigh twice as much as you. I'm a cow, eating grass, methane gas comes out my ass. I'm a cow, you are too; join us all! Type apt-get moo.
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br wrote: Any luck on a DNS based solution? I'm looking into a F5 GTM solution based out of a colo we have in Europe to direct SMTP between France and the US hubs. Now I just have to work layers 8 9. Remember when users didn't expect sub-minute delivery times? Thanks for everyone's help, you've give me a lot of good ideas to consider and I've learned more than I ever thought I would about anycast. Although I'm not on the BGP end of things anymore I value the minds, personalities and pure history that NANOG brings. Total side note: I remember back at a NANOG in Atlanta, 2000 maybe, at a BOF on ARIN allocations where I was arguing for netblocks less than a /21 because Amazon couldn't justify that much at that time, I mean we only had one public site but still wanted to multi-home. I remember Randy Bush even backed me up on that one. In the end I did get a block for Amazon and brought up BGP. Oh how times have changed (and how I wish I still had those stock options!) Best regards, Joe (ex JH484) -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: It seems to be more of a last-mile backhoe fade issue right now. I'm trying to convince them that a manufacturing facility isn't a good place for a data center. Backhoes seem to have gotten you for a day or so now. My mail to you is deferred on my server and: nslookup -q=mx nethead.com Server: 192.168.99.1 Address:192.168.99.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: nethead.com mail exchanger = 10 tulalip.us. nethead.com mail exchanger = 0 hamelin.us. telnet hamelin.us. 25 Trying 208.71.161.175... Connection failed: No route to host traceroute -T -p 25 hamelin.us. traceroute to hamelin.us. (208.71.161.175), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 lo0-100.WASHDC-VFTTP-312.verizon-gni.net (71.246.241.1) 1.091 ms 1.127 ms 1.442 ms 2 T1-3-0-4.WASHDC-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.221.218) 3.869 ms T2-9-0-13.WASHDC-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (100.41.137.158) 5.005 ms T2-9-0-13.WASHDC-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (100.41.137.88) 5.651 ms 3 * * * 4 0.ae3.BR2.IAD8.ALTER.NET (140.222.227.195) 6.399 ms 6.578 ms 6.668 ms 5 204.255.168.226 (204.255.168.226) 5.324 ms 5.744 ms 6.168 ms 6 207.88.14.162.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.162) 79.304 ms 74.726 ms 75.877 ms 7 vb6.rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net (207.88.12.33) 72.258 ms 75.141 ms 72.125 ms 8 te-4-1-0.rar3.denver-co.us.xo.net (207.88.12.22) 74.619 ms 74.544 ms 74.475 ms 9 te-3-0-0.rar3.seattle-wa.us.xo.net (207.88.12.81) 78.125 ms 78.264 ms 77.969 ms 10 ae0d0.cir1.seattle7-wa.us.xo.net (207.88.13.141) 74.881 ms 76.052 ms 76.469 ms 11 216.156.100.146.ptr.us.xo.net (216.156.100.146) 89.162 ms 88.563 ms 89.005 ms 12 cr2-sea-b-te-0-0-0-9.bb.spectrumnet.us (174.127.140.158) 85.827 ms cr2-sea-b-te-0-0-0-8.bb.spectrumnet.us (174.127.140.154) 86.021 ms 85.414 ms 13 cr1-bds-te-0-0-0-1.bb.spectrumnet.us (174.127.138.123) 88.308 ms cr1-bds-te-0-0-0-3.bb.spectrumnet.us (174.127.138.127) 86.834 ms cr1-bds-te-0-0-0-1.bb.spectrumnet.us (174.127.138.123) 87.826 ms 14 TulalipTribes-1000M-BDS.demarc.spectrumnet.us (216.243.26.98) 88.101 ms 87.321 ms 88.475 ms 15 * 208.83.58.225 (208.83.58.225) 88.298 ms 88.084 ms 16 74.112.52.200 (74.112.52.200) 87.485 ms 86.812 ms 86.365 ms 17 host-208-71-161-250.tulalipbroadband.com (208.71.161.250) 86.317 ms 86.103 ms 86.366 ms 18 host-208-71-161-175.tulalip.us (208.71.161.175) 108.818 ms 108.118 ms 107.581 ms 19 host-208-71-161-175.tulalip.us (208.71.161.175) 2605.488 ms !H 2617.132 ms !H * -Bill -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
In message 82d10008-cb76-42c7-a78c-ee876924d...@pch.net, Bill Woodcock writes: If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4 assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon⦠â¦which is one of the reasons why I suggested that he do anycast DNS (presumably using a DNS service provider) rather than anycast SMTP (presumably using himself) anyway. So, regardless of how much youâre rolling your eyes, weâre saying the same thing. Weâre just being testy about the details. -Bill If you are that worried about a anycast SMTP/TCP session breaking, you will be just as worried about a anycast DNS/TCP session breaking. That said the problem is that a client SMTP server doesn't retry fast enough when a TCP session breaks mid transaction. Anycast TCP will not fix this. I'm not aware of any SMTP client that takes 4 hours to try the next MX when connect fails and it was a 4 hour retry that was the complaint. Anycast will only help if the SMTP client doesn't try all the lowest cost MX's and there are very few broken SMTP clients that do this. The best fix for these is to identify the clients and get them upgraded to something that is RFC compliant. Trying multiple MXs is a 20+ year old requirement. Basically you are wasting your money on anycast SMTP. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
On Jun 15, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when one site goes down. My solution will be to place a load balancer in a hosting site (virtual, of course) and have it provide HA. But what about HA for the LB? At first glance anycasting would seem to be a great idea but there is a problem of broken sessions when routes change. Have any of you seen something like this work in the wild? F5 GTM? Depending on what your DNS volume is you could probably get away with a couple of virtual appliances… -- Robert inoc.net!rblayzor Jabber: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net PGP Key: 78BEDCE1 @ pgp.mit.edu
