Re: /27 the new /24

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone pointing 
out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to delivering 
IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the 
time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 


Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had 
IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my 
garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was fully 
supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that eventually 
became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing for IPv6 
support in the product I work on for my employer.


But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized 
ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities -- 
even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no or 
very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of the 
transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general isn't 
the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They will add 
IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the time, and 
when the economics make sense.


Meanwhile we have app developers trying to use cloud platforms that 
don't support IPv6 well (or at all), writing code while sitting in 
offices that don't have IPv6 service due either to their ISP or their 
internal IT department... and so there's another reason ISPs need to 
keep concentrating on IPv4 as their first priority.


And so, in the current actual Internet, not some hypothetical one, if 
you want your website to be seen, you get it an IPv4 address. And with 
IPv4 going for $6-$8 each and it being possible to support hundreds or 
thousands of websites on a single IPv4 address, there's really no excuse.


Will this be different in the future? I sure hope so. But we're not 
there yet.


Matthew Kaufman

Re: /27 the new /24

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:49:44 -0400, Matthew Kaufman said:
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't have to.  I'm sure some AG will do so soon enough.
>
> There's always an optimist around.
>
> Good luck with that.

And I happened to get a big thing of very good microwave popcorn the other
night.  What perfect timing


pgpakoRc2vxBK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /27 the new /24

[Mark Andrews]

In message <56166c30.3070...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> 
> 
> On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone pointing 
> > out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to delivering 
> > IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the 
> > time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 
> 
> Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had 
> IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my 
> garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was fully 
> supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that eventually 
> became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing for IPv6 
> support in the product I work on for my employer.

And I've done tunnelled (home) and native (office in RWC) for over
a decade.

> But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized 
> ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities -- 
> even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no or 
> very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of the 
> transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general isn't 
> the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They will add 
> IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the time, and 
> when the economics make sense.

I'm happy if they advertise "IPv4 Internet Only", just don't lie
by claiming you deliever the Internet.  To deliver the Internet you
need to be delivering both IPv4 and IPv6.

> Meanwhile we have app developers trying to use cloud platforms that 
> don't support IPv6 well (or at all), writing code while sitting in 
> offices that don't have IPv6 service due either to their ISP or their 
> internal IT department... and so there's another reason ISPs need to 
> keep concentrating on IPv4 as their first priority.

Just because some of the ISP's customers are happy with IPv4 is not
a reason to neglect the customers that need IPv6.  You may not want
to call the Sudan often but would you want your telco to be incapable
of delivering calls to the Sudan?

> And so, in the current actual Internet, not some hypothetical one, if 
> you want your website to be seen, you get it an IPv4 address. And with 
> IPv4 going for $6-$8 each and it being possible to support hundreds or 
> thousands of websites on a single IPv4 address, there's really no excuse.

And there you go assuming that a hosted web site is what someone
needs rather than the ability to get back to their machines that
are behind a CGN for IPv4 but are reachable over IPv6.

This is today's reality and ISP's are not meeting today's needs.
It's not just about having enough IPv4 addresses.  It's about
providing the infrastructure to allow your customers to connect to
everyone.

> Will this be different in the future? I sure hope so. But we're not 
> there yet.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: /27 the new /24

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Around 2004 I noted that the fear was without v4 something in the
network would break. (It was considered crazy then to consider v6 only).

Now I'm seeing concern that something in the applications will break.
The difference is that networks can't guarantee to push static IPv4 to
those problems like they could. New networks can't establish let alone
grow unless they are essentially v6 only with v4 translation. But I'm
seeing concern that some of these newer IETF transition mechanisms are
too complex or expensive  - i.e., off-putting enough so a smaller ISP is
forced to consider CGNAT. 

I'm not sure if this is just an isolated case or if there is something
missing needed by smaller and growing ISPs . 


Christian


Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
> On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone
>> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to
>> delivering IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver
>> IPv6 by the time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 
>
> Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had
> IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my
> garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was
> fully supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that
> eventually became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing
> for IPv6 support in the product I work on for my employer.
>
> But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized
> ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities --
> even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no
> or very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of
> the transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general
> isn't the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They
> will add IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the
> time, and when the economics make sense.
>
> Meanwhile we have app developers trying to use cloud platforms that
> don't support IPv6 well (or at all), writing code while sitting in
> offices that don't have IPv6 service due either to their ISP or their
> internal IT department... and so there's another reason ISPs need to
> keep concentrating on IPv4 as their first priority.
>
> And so, in the current actual Internet, not some hypothetical one, if
> you want your website to be seen, you get it an IPv4 address. And with
> IPv4 going for $6-$8 each and it being possible to support hundreds or
> thousands of websites on a single IPv4 address, there's really no excuse.
>
> Will this be different in the future? I sure hope so. But we're not
> there yet.
>
> Matthew Kaufman

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net
-

Re: /27 the new /24

[David Barak via NANOG]

On Thu, 10/8/15, Mark Andrews  wrote:

> This is today's reality and ISP's are not meeting
> today's needs.
> It's not just about
> having enough IPv4 addresses.  It's about
> providing the infrastructure to allow your
> customers to connect to
> everyone.

I think you should s/everyone/everyone they care about/

That roughly explains why there is no particular consumer outcry (which isn't 
about speed/bandwidth or mobile coverage, anyway).

 David Barak

Need help with Time Warner announcing my new /24 on their network

[Martin Moreno]

Hello we are an independent ISP single homed with bandwidth from Time
Warner Cable fiber.

I was wondering if a TW tech could reach out to me. We've received an
allocation from ARIN that I've asked TW to announce on our behalf, we
issued the LOA, and first line says that it is setup but we are not seeing
the block in any looking glasses.

Since we are not multi homed nor have our own AS TW did a static route from
their gateway router /IP to our router but they are saying we need to do a
next hop statement and to point the new /24 back to their gateway ip? We
have gone over this a few times and I am not clear on this and how it would
affect them announcing our /24 to Radb etc. I was under the impression that
once the route was announced it would show up in Radb even without us doing
anything on our end yet.

Thanks

-- 
Martin Moreno
Owner Accel Wireless
949-616-4146

Re: BCOP Wiki Logo Missing

[mikea]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:27:32PM +, Nicholas Warren wrote:
> http://nabcop.org/index.php
> 
> For me the logo is a flower and it says "Set $wgLogo to the URL path to your
> own logo image."
> Am I the only one?

Same here. I suspect that the page has not been fully customized. 

-- 
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin 

BCOP Wiki Logo Missing

[Nicholas Warren]

http://nabcop.org/index.php

For me the logo is a flower and it says "Set $wgLogo to the URL path to your
own logo image."
Am I the only one?

- Thanks,
Nich 




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: BCOP Wiki Logo Missing

[Hugo Slabbert]

On Thu 2015-Oct-08 15:26:18 +, Nicholas Warren  
wrote:


Doesn't the NANOG maintain that wiki? I remember the NANOG logo being on
there at one time.


You want some salt in that wound?

http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-September/079522.html



Thank you,
- Nich


--
Hugo

h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E

(also on textsecure & redphone)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

RE: BCOP Wiki Logo Missing

[Nicholas Warren]

Doesn't the NANOG maintain that wiki? I remember the NANOG logo being on
there at one time.

Thank you,
- Nich


> -Original Message-
> From: mikea [mailto:mi...@mikea.ath.cx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 10:00 AM
> To: Nicholas Warren
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: BCOP Wiki Logo Missing
> 
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:27:32PM +, Nicholas Warren wrote:
> > http://nabcop.org/index.php
> >
> > For me the logo is a flower and it says "Set $wgLogo to the URL path
> > to your own logo image."
> > Am I the only one?
> 
> Same here. I suspect that the page has not been fully customized.
> 
> --
> Mike Andrews, W5EGO
> mi...@mikea.ath.cx
> Tired old sysadmin


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Need help with Time Warner announcing my new /24 on their network

[Dave Bell]

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Martin Moreno  
> wrote:
>> Since we are not multi homed nor have our own AS TW did a static route from
>> their gateway router /IP to our router

On 8 October 2015 at 17:09, William Herrin  wrote:
> router bgp YOURAS#
>   neighbor TWIP next-hop-self
>
> This tell your router to advertise your IP addresses with your
> router's address as the next hop.

>From what he has written, he is not doing BGP with his upstream. In
this case what is he supposed to be doing next hop self on?

Sounds like TW have messed something up, and are not redistributing your prefix.

Regards,
Dave

Re: Need help with Time Warner announcing my new /24 on their network

[Bartek Krawczyk]

Besides, swapping next hop is default in eBGP sessions.
Next-hop-self is only needed for iBGP.

On 8 October 2015 at 18:16, Dave Bell  wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Martin Moreno  
>> wrote:
>>> Since we are not multi homed nor have our own AS TW did a static route from
>>> their gateway router /IP to our router
>
> On 8 October 2015 at 17:09, William Herrin  wrote:
>> router bgp YOURAS#
>>   neighbor TWIP next-hop-self
>>
>> This tell your router to advertise your IP addresses with your
>> router's address as the next hop.
>
> From what he has written, he is not doing BGP with his upstream. In
> this case what is he supposed to be doing next hop self on?
>
> Sounds like TW have messed something up, and are not redistributing your 
> prefix.
>
> Regards,
> Dave



-- 
Bartek Krawczyk

Re: /27 the new /24

[Mike]

On 10/08/2015 06:14 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:



On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone 
pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to 
delivering IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver 
IPv6 by the time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 


Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had 
IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my 
garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was 
fully supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that 
eventually became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing 
for IPv6 support in the product I work on for my employer.


But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized 
ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities -- 
even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no 
or very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of 
the transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general 
isn't the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They 
will add IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the 
time, and when the economics make sense.





Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of 
things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I 
do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get 
IPv6 transit, there is not much point in my putting a lot of effort into 
enabling IPv6 for my subscribers. Yes I have a HE tunnel and yes it's 
working, but it's not the same as running native v6 and with my own 
address space. Second, on the group of servers that have v6 thru the HE 
tunnel, I still run into problems all the time where some operations 
over v6 simply fail inexplictly, requireing me to turn off v6 on that 
host so whatever it is I'm doing can proceed over v4. Stuff like OS 
updates for example. Damm maddening. Can't imagine the screaming I'll 
hear if a home user ever ran into similar so I am quite gun shy about 
the prospect. Secondly, the the dodgy nature of the CPE connected to our 
network and the terminally buggy fw they all run is sure to be a never 
ending source of stupidity. Thirdly, some parts of my network are 
wireless, and multicast is a huge, huge problem on wireless (the 802.11 
varities anyways). The forwarding rates for multicast are sickeningly 
low for many brand of gear - yes, it's at the bottom of the barrel no 
matter how good or hot your signal is - and I honestly expect v6 to 
experience enough disruption over wireless as to render it unusable for 
exactly this reason alone.


The wired portion of my subscriber network is only slightly better, im 
pretty sure it can deal with v6 in the middle, but the question is still 
wether specfic CPE models can and which set of bugs I'll hit on my 
access concentrators passing our v6 over PPPoE. I just read about a 
cisco bug where enabling rp-filtering on v6 causes a router reload, 
which I would hit immediately since rp-filtering is a standard 
subscriber profile option here (trying to be a good netizen). How many 
other network destroying bugs await? The longer I wait on v6, the less 
work I will have to do dealing with bugs. So, as the original posted 
said, we'll do v6 when it's easy, when we have time, and when the 
economics make sense.


Mike-

Re: Need help with Time Warner announcing my new /24 on their network

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Martin Moreno  wrote:
> Since we are not multi homed nor have our own AS TW did a static route from
> their gateway router /IP to our router but they are saying we need to do a
> next hop statement and to point the new /24 back to their gateway ip?

router bgp YOURAS#
  neighbor TWIP next-hop-self

This tell your router to advertise your IP addresses with your
router's address as the next hop. BGP does not do this automatically
because in more complicated configurations it's often not the desired
result.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

IPv6 Search Engine

[Nicholas Warren]

Not sure where to find this at... But is there a search engine out there
that only returns sites which can be accessed via IPv6? Duel-stack or IPv6
only. Google results are all just dead links.

- Thanks,
Nich



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: /27 the new /24

[James Jun]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:45:38PM -0700, Mike wrote:
> 
> NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO 
> NOT HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower?

Who is your upstream provider?

I think you're confused on how the IP transit industry works.

If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport 
circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center.  Once
you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in the
competitive IP transit market will provide you with dual-stacked IPv4/IPv6
service.

If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location that
you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive service,
and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either unreasonable, 
ignorant or both.

Best,
James

Re: Fw: important message

[Larry Sheldon]

On 10/8/2015 16:53, Job Snijders wrote:

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:37:15PM -0700, Scott Berkman via NANOG wrote:

Hello!

Important message, please read 


smells compromised, moderation flag has been enabled. don't click that
link, sorry.


Every indication that it as you think, or worse.

It it being propagated (by|to) NANOG and Outages (that I know of).

It has been going on for some time.  As is my habit, I have tried to get 
help in shutting it down, but as you might expect, there is zero 
interest at the administration level in the problem.


Eventually some low-clue person will get burned bad and depending on how 
big the splash is some interest may arise.



--
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

Re: /27 the new /24

[Mike]

On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:



Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of
things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I
do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get
IPv6 transit,

There are lots of transit providers that provide IPv6.  It really is
time to name and shame transit providers that don't provide IPv6.


NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO 
NOT HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower?



there is not much point in my putting a lot of effort into
enabling IPv6 for my subscribers. Yes I have a HE tunnel and yes it's
working, but it's not the same as running native v6 and with my own
address space. Second, on the group of servers that have v6 thru the HE
tunnel, I still run into problems all the time where some operations
over v6 simply fail inexplictly, requireing me to turn off v6 on that
host so whatever it is I'm doing can proceed over v4.
Stuff like OS updates for example.

Then complain to the OS vendor.  It is most probably someone breaking
PMTU discover by filtering PTB.  Going native will hide these
problems until the MTU between the DC and the rest of the net
increases.  You could also just lower the advertised MTU internally
to match the tunnel MTU which would let you simulate better what a
native experience would be.

Not my job. v4 works, v6 does not, end of story.



I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it 
over IPv6 it is that long ago.


It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that v6 
IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.



Damm maddening. Can't imagine the screaming I'll
hear if a home user ever ran into similar so I am quite gun shy about
the prospect. Secondly, the the dodgy nature of the CPE connected to our
network and the terminally buggy fw they all run is sure to be a never
ending source of stupidity.

CPE devices are buggy for IPv4 as well.  Bugs in CPE devices are
only found and fixed if the code paths are exercised.


Not my job. v4 works, v6 does not. I am a provider not a developer.

That said IPv6 worked fine for me with the shipped image (old version
of OpenWRT) using 6to4 before I reflashed it to a modern version
of OpenWRT as I wanted to use the HE tunnel rather than 6to4.  I
know that is only one CPE device.
 And will you be providing all of my end users with replacement CPE 
that meets all of the other requirements too? No? Because no such 
devices exist yet? OHHH yeah thats right, I'm a provider not a 
developer, so again, not a solution for my business.



Thirdly, some parts of my network are
wireless, and multicast is a huge, huge problem on wireless (the 802.11
varities anyways). The forwarding rates for multicast are sickeningly
low for many brand of gear - yes, it's at the bottom of the barrel no
matter how good or hot your signal is - and I honestly expect v6 to
experience enough disruption over wireless as to render it unusable for
exactly this reason alone.

You expect but haven't tested.


Based on observation and experience, I think v6 will wipe out the 802.11 
portion of my network and no, Im not going to 'test' it, recovery would 
be near impossible and in any event I don't experiment with paying 
customers. I won't move until the underlaying issues are resolved, and 
that means fixing multicast in wireless, which won't be done by me again 
because, you guessed it, I am a provider and not a developer.

The wired portion of my subscriber network is only slightly better, im
pretty sure it can deal with v6 in the middle, but the question is still
wether specfic CPE models can and which set of bugs I'll hit on my
access concentrators passing our v6 over PPPoE. I just read about a
cisco bug where enabling rp-filtering on v6 causes a router reload,
which I would hit immediately since rp-filtering is a standard
subscriber profile option here (trying to be a good netizen). How many
other network destroying bugs await? The longer I wait on v6, the less
work I will have to do dealing with bugs. So, as the original posted
said, we'll do v6 when it's easy, when we have time, and when the
economics make sense.

And is there a fix available yet?  All code has bugs in it.  They
exist in both the IPv4 code paths and the IPv6 code paths.  There
are lots of places that are going IPv6 only internally and only
having IPv4 at the fringe.  You can't do that if routers are flakey
when pushing IPv6 packets.  This is basically just fear overriding
rational decisions.


I am a provider and not a developer, and I am likely only going to use 
what I know works and what is within my sphere of control and influence. 
The flakey crappy state of v6 today means I am not putting it out 
anywhere a customer would have any exposure to it. I don't play games 
with my customers that way.

Re: /27 the new /24

[Mark Andrews]

In message <561699f3.1070...@tiedyenetworks.com>, Mike writes:
> On 10/08/2015 06:14 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone 
> >> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to 
> >> delivering IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver 
> >> IPv6 by the time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 
> >
> > Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had 
> > IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my 
> > garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was 
> > fully supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that 
> > eventually became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing 
> > for IPv6 support in the product I work on for my employer.
> >
> > But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized 
> > ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities -- 
> > even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no 
> > or very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of 
> > the transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general 
> > isn't the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They 
> > will add IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the 
> > time, and when the economics make sense.
> >
> 
> 
> Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of 
> things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I 
> do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get 
> IPv6 transit,

There are lots of transit providers that provide IPv6.  It really is
time to name and shame transit providers that don't provide IPv6.

> there is not much point in my putting a lot of effort into 
> enabling IPv6 for my subscribers. Yes I have a HE tunnel and yes it's 
> working, but it's not the same as running native v6 and with my own 
> address space. Second, on the group of servers that have v6 thru the HE 
> tunnel, I still run into problems all the time where some operations 
> over v6 simply fail inexplictly, requireing me to turn off v6 on that 
> host so whatever it is I'm doing can proceed over v4.

> Stuff like OS updates for example.

Then complain to the OS vendor.  It is most probably someone breaking
PMTU discover by filtering PTB.  Going native will hide these
problems until the MTU between the DC and the rest of the net
increases.  You could also just lower the advertised MTU internally
to match the tunnel MTU which would let you simulate better what a
native experience would be.

I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching
it over IPv6 it is that long ago.

> Damm maddening. Can't imagine the screaming I'll 
> hear if a home user ever ran into similar so I am quite gun shy about 
> the prospect. Secondly, the the dodgy nature of the CPE connected to our 
> network and the terminally buggy fw they all run is sure to be a never 
> ending source of stupidity.

CPE devices are buggy for IPv4 as well.  Bugs in CPE devices are
only found and fixed if the code paths are exercised.

That said IPv6 worked fine for me with the shipped image (old version
of OpenWRT) using 6to4 before I reflashed it to a modern version
of OpenWRT as I wanted to use the HE tunnel rather than 6to4.  I
know that is only one CPE device.

> Thirdly, some parts of my network are 
> wireless, and multicast is a huge, huge problem on wireless (the 802.11 
> varities anyways). The forwarding rates for multicast are sickeningly 
> low for many brand of gear - yes, it's at the bottom of the barrel no 
> matter how good or hot your signal is - and I honestly expect v6 to 
> experience enough disruption over wireless as to render it unusable for 
> exactly this reason alone.

You expect but haven't tested.

> The wired portion of my subscriber network is only slightly better, im 
> pretty sure it can deal with v6 in the middle, but the question is still 
> wether specfic CPE models can and which set of bugs I'll hit on my 
> access concentrators passing our v6 over PPPoE. I just read about a 
> cisco bug where enabling rp-filtering on v6 causes a router reload, 
> which I would hit immediately since rp-filtering is a standard 
> subscriber profile option here (trying to be a good netizen). How many 
> other network destroying bugs await? The longer I wait on v6, the less 
> work I will have to do dealing with bugs. So, as the original posted 
> said, we'll do v6 when it's easy, when we have time, and when the 
> economics make sense.

And is there a fix available yet?  All code has bugs in it.  They
exist in both the IPv4 code paths and the IPv6 code paths.  There
are lots of places that are going IPv6 only internally and only
having IPv4 at the fringe.  You can't do that if routers are flakey
when pushing IPv6 packets.  This is basically just fear 

Re: Fw: important message

[Job Snijders]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:37:15PM -0700, Scott Berkman via NANOG wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Important message, please read 

smells compromised, moderation flag has been enabled. don't click that
link, sorry.

Kind regards,

Job
(for the communications committee)

Re: NR Software\Xeex Communications

[Bob Evans]

Equinix is truly one of the worst and over priced in Silicon Valley
California. It's why Coresite does so well here. Coresite has less than 48
hour cross connect completion and remote hands the same day for
non-emergencies. For rare emergencies you can rush remote hands and
Coresite staff gets in your rack right away.

We have been treated badly at PAIX PALO ALTO.

In their paix palo alto facility they had a bathroom pipe break -we took
photos- it rained "literally poured" on our rack. I had to tell the paix
staff to run next door at Walgreens and buy all the paper towels they
could until someone finds towels. Inches of water on the floor.

Zero help or responsibility- giant waste of time. They are still in denial
mode. Yet they paid the plumbers to repair the bathroom pipes that broke
and had about 5 techs pushing inches of water around.

We had to put in new gear and they never paid a dime  - I think Equinix
doesn't have insurance and doesn't care about your protection even if
their facility fails.  To our legal letter, their response was that our
own insurance should pay. Our insurance didn't want to hear about it,
because they cover customers and we had no customers gear involved.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




> I know I'm going to be blowing the door wide open on this request, but I'd
> be interested in hearing from anyone else that was one of Equinix's first
> few customers. The deal I was getting on some services has been unrivaled,
> but the support I've received has been unrivaled in the not so pleasant
> way. It's time I just moved on. I need a vendor that responds at least
> within two weeks or 20 messages, whichever is more. (Twenty sounds like a
> lot, but when spread out over two weeks following other weeks of
> non-response, I don't think it's out of line.)
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> To: "nanog group" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 1:38:43 PM
> Subject: NR Software\Xeex Communications
>
>
> Does anyone know what's going on over there? Any not-front door phone
> numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.? I haven't been getting responses from
> them for a while.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
>
>
>

Fw: important message

[Scott Berkman via NANOG]

Hello!

 

Important message, please read 

 

Scott Berkman

Re: /27 the new /24

[Jason Baugher]

This thread, while originally interesting and helpful, seems to have
degraded to a contest to see who can be the most arrogant, condescending
and insulting. Congrats.
On Oct 8, 2015 6:25 PM, "James Jun"  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:45:38PM -0700, Mike wrote:
> >
> > NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO
> > NOT HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower?
>
> Who is your upstream provider?
>
> I think you're confused on how the IP transit industry works.
>
> If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport
> circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center.  Once
> you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in the
> competitive IP transit market will provide you with dual-stacked IPv4/IPv6
> service.
>
> If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location that
> you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive service,
> and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either unreasonable,
> ignorant or both.
>
> Best,
> James
>

Re: Fw: important message

[Rob McEwen]

A lot of web sites have been infected by criminal spammers in the past 
couple of years. More recently, massive amounts of legitimate web sites 
run by non-spammers which used older versions of WordPress (in 
particular)... have had their web sites hacked into by criminal 
spammers. The WordPress exploit is epidemic. Since most of these sites 
are legitimate, they are difficult to blacklist because blacklisting 
them does cause some amount of collateral damage (though usually a very 
acceptable and targeted amount of collateral damage--given the 
circumstances). The problem here is that the SAME algorithms which help 
the better domain-based anti-spam blacklists to NOT have false 
positives--OFTEN--also prevent THESE sites from getting 
blacklisted--even when the infection is active. Those are arguably False 
Negatives, especially in the more extreme cases when much spam is 
spewing, with relatively little legit mail containing these domains!


Plus, feeling sorry for the site owner's "collateral damage" is like 
thinking that it is unfair that someone with a highly contagious 
disease, who got it from irresponsible behavior (dirty needle, etc), 
wasn't allowed allowed to walk in a crowded public area. When a web site 
is hosting such malicious content, the web site owner SHOULD lose some 
privileges until such time that they've cleaned up their mess.


Because of this situation, some changes were made to the invaluementURI 
domain blacklist (ivmURI) about 1 or 2 years ago... to enable it to 
better surgically target THESE types of exploited domains, yet with a 
reasonable balance that (hopefully) wouldn't trigger too many FPs. So 
far, that has been highly successful and I see evidence that other such 
lists (surbl, uribl, and SpamHaus's DBL list) have made some 
improvements in this area too.


For example, ivmURI had THIS particular domain blacklisted for over a 
week now (with nobody else listing it!)... and I seem to recall two such 
messages slipping through just weeks ago ago where the domain in one was 
only on SpamHaus' DBL list, and the other was only listed on ivmURI. (or 
was that the SA list where I saw those 2 messages?)


even as I type this, ivmURI seems to be the only blacklist which has 
"globalreagents DOT com" blacklisted, fwiw


--
Rob McEwen

Re: /27 the new /24

[Jeremy Austin]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun  wrote:

>
> If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport
> circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center.  Once
> you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in the
> competitive IP transit market will provide you with dual-stacked IPv4/IPv6
> service.
>

The future is here, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. I'm in North
America, but there are no IXPs in my *state*, let alone in my *continent*
-- from an undersea fiber perspective. There is no truly competitive IP
transit market within Alaska that I am aware of. Would love to be proved
wrong. Heck, GCI and ACS (the two providers with such fiber) only directly
peered a handful of years ago.


> If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location that
> you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive service,
> and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either unreasonable,
> ignorant or both.
>

Interestingly both statewide providers *do* provide both IPv4 and IPv6
peering. The trick is to find a spot where there's true price competition.
The 3 largest statewide ISPs have fiber that meets a mere three city blocks
from one of my POPs, but there's no allowable IX. I'm looking at you, AT

-- 
Jeremy Austin
Whitestone Power & Communications, Alaska

Re: /27 the new /24

[Ricky Beam]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:45:38 -0400, Mike   
wrote:

WE DO NOT HAVE realistic choices.


Or, apparently, realistic expectations.

You, do, indeed, deserve public shaming for your complete lack of  
willingness to support IPv6. Your customers have no "realistic choices"  
either. How many other ISPs do they have to choice from? If you cannot be  
bothered to support IPv6, how are they supposed to? ("use a tunnel broker"  
is the *WRONG* answer)


You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the global  
internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be left  
behind, and your customers who have little or no other options will suffer  
for it.


https://youtu.be/g1GF4Gnb-D0

I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it  
over IPv6 it is that long ago.


It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that v6  
IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.


This is just *your* flawed perception. Have you bothered to be an engineer  
and figure out _WHY_ it doesn't work? Or do you like keeping your head in  
the sand mumbling "it's not my job"?



Thirdly, some parts of my network are
wireless, and multicast ...

Based on observation and experience, I think v6 will wipe out the 802.11


If you are providing customer access via 802.11 technology, then yes, you  
do have a serious problem. But it's a problem you already have with v4 as  
well... or do you block _ALL_ broadcast traffic from your 802.11 network?  
Have you checked those networks, because I'm pretty sure there's multicast  
on them already. (windows and mac generate multicast by default)


My experience shows multicast is a problem for 99% of WiFi gear. It's  
handled like all other broadcast and sent at "basic rate" to all stations,  
which is going to be slow as crap. However, IPv6 ND (and RAs) do not  
amount to a volume that will, under normal conditions, kill a WiFi  
network. I run IPv6 over my 802.11a/b/g/n networks; no one has even  
noticed! (even with Truly Ancient Hardware(tm))


--Ricky

Re: Fw: important message

[chris]

About the same danger as  virus.doc.exe :)
On Oct 8, 2015 9:09 PM, "symack"  wrote:

> It's a php script. How bad can it be ;)​
>

Re: /27 the new /24

[Jon Lewis]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:


Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of
things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I
do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get
IPv6 transit,


There are lots of transit providers that provide IPv6.  It really is
time to name and shame transit providers that don't provide IPv6.


Unless he's buying from Bob's Bait, Tackle, and Internet (who's reselling 
service off his Brighthouse cable modem connection), I find it hard to 
believe there are "transit providers" in the NANOG region who still cannot 
provide dual-stack addressing and BGP for DIA.



there is not much point in my putting a lot of effort into
enabling IPv6 for my subscribers. Yes I have a HE tunnel and yes it's


With some OS's (Apple) preferring v6 if it's there, it would actually be a 
bad idea to enable IPv6 for your subscribers before you have 
stable/reliable v6 connectivity hooked up for the network.



address space. Second, on the group of servers that have v6 thru the HE
tunnel, I still run into problems all the time where some operations
over v6 simply fail inexplictly, requireing me to turn off v6 on that
host so whatever it is I'm doing can proceed over v4.


v6 routing doesn't always get the same level of scrutiny as v4.  i.e. 
Suboptimal v6 paths might get used for some time before someone with 
enough clue to notice speaks up.  Presumably, that will change as v6 
adoption gets more widespread.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: /27 the new /24

[Stephen Satchell]

On 10/08/2015 05:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:

You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the
global internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be
left behind, and your customers who have little or no other options will
suffer for it.


ISP == "Internet Service Provider".  The key word here is "service". 
tiedyenetworks.com is a provider of services to customers, and I suspect 
those are retail customers.  What he just told you is that the service 
he provides, in his experience, does not play well with IPv6 AS 
CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED IN AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT.  On the one hand, IPv6 is 
"the future" (I just invested a fair amount of cred to get the books 
recommended to me here on NANOG to get up to speed) but like early 
versions of just about every thing and every product, there are still a 
few potholes.


tiedyenetworks.com, from my reading of this thread, has elected to limit 
his service offerings to his customers that he can reasonably support. 
That's good, solid business sense.  Nothing is worse than providing a 
product that does not work as expected or advertised.  VW, anyone?



(windows and mac generate multicast by default)


And unless there is a damn good need for that multicast traffic, it gets 
blocked.  From my edge network, I block multicasts and broadcasts both 
inbound and outbound.  When I was network admin for the web hosting 
company I worked for, I also blocked a number of ports at my edge, ports 
that had no business being used in the general case.  I had *one* 
customer that needed to come in using 3309; I punched a hole in the ACLs 
for that one customer, and damn carefully.



This is just *your* flawed perception. Have you bothered to be an
engineer and figure out _WHY_ it doesn't work?


Maybe you missed his earlier declaration:  "I'm a provider, not a 
developer."  He expects the equipment to work.  It doesn't.  Did he ask 
his vendor?  I don't know, but my personal experience with 
wireless-equipment vendors is not encouraging.  Some people don't have 
the money, resources, or time to winkle out all the wrinkles, so they go 
with what works in their situation.  Consider the rural market:  damn 
few customers, so $150K engineers are out of the question.



I run IPv6 over my 802.11a/b/g/n networks; no one has even noticed!
(even with Truly Ancient Hardware(tm))


That's your experience.  He has a different experience.  I suspect your 
customer base is considerably more dense than tiedyenetwork.com's base. 
 Did you say you are primarily a rural provider?  Mike did.  Your 
earlier traffic suggests your base of operations is more in a city or 
suburban environment.  Apples and oranges, if true.

Re: Fw: important message

[symack]

It's a php script. How bad can it be ;)​

Re: /27 the new /24

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Mike  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of
>> things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I
>> do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get
>> IPv6 transit,
>> 
>> There are lots of transit providers that provide IPv6.  It really is
>> time to name and shame transit providers that don't provide IPv6.
> 
> NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO NOT 
> HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower?

Um… 

There ARE LOTS of transit providers that provide IPv6. It may be true that none 
of them serve your locality or overlap locations where you have presence, but 
that does not mean that they do not exist.

> 
>>> there is not much point in my putting a lot of effort into
>>> enabling IPv6 for my subscribers. Yes I have a HE tunnel and yes it's
>>> working, but it's not the same as running native v6 and with my own
>>> address space. Second, on the group of servers that have v6 thru the HE
>>> tunnel, I still run into problems all the time where some operations
>>> over v6 simply fail inexplictly, requireing me to turn off v6 on that
>>> host so whatever it is I'm doing can proceed over v4.
>>> Stuff like OS updates for example.
>> Then complain to the OS vendor.  It is most probably someone breaking
>> PMTU discover by filtering PTB.  Going native will hide these
>> problems until the MTU between the DC and the rest of the net
>> increases.  You could also just lower the advertised MTU internally
>> to match the tunnel MTU which would let you simulate better what a
>> native experience would be.
> Not my job. v4 works, v6 does not, end of story.

Hmmm… Let’s see if you can still say that in a few years.

>> I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over 
>> IPv6 it is that long ago.
> 
> It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that v6 IS 
> NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

Yet you refuse to troubleshoot your issues with it that are not shared by 
others and blame the protocol for whatever is probably wrong with your own 
network. Interesting tactic.

Best of luck with that as your network gradually becomes an IPv4 island no 
longer connected to the majority of the internet.

Owen

Re: /27 the new /24

[Mark Andrews]

In message <56172237.5030...@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes:
> On 10/08/2015 05:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the
> > global internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be
> > left behind, and your customers who have little or no other options will
> > suffer for it.
> 
> ISP == "Internet Service Provider".  The key word here is "service". 
> tiedyenetworks.com is a provider of services to customers, and I suspect 
> those are retail customers.  What he just told you is that the service 
> he provides, in his experience, does not play well with IPv6 AS 
> CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED IN AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT.  On the one hand, IPv6 is 
> "the future" (I just invested a fair amount of cred to get the books 
> recommended to me here on NANOG to get up to speed) but like early 
> versions of just about every thing and every product, there are still a 
> few potholes.
> 
> tiedyenetworks.com, from my reading of this thread, has elected to limit 
> his service offerings to his customers that he can reasonably support. 
> That's good, solid business sense.  Nothing is worse than providing a 
> product that does not work as expected or advertised.  VW, anyone?
> 
> > (windows and mac generate multicast by default)
> 
> And unless there is a damn good need for that multicast traffic, it gets 
> blocked.  From my edge network, I block multicasts and broadcasts both 
> inbound and outbound.  When I was network admin for the web hosting 
> company I worked for, I also blocked a number of ports at my edge, ports 
> that had no business being used in the general case.  I had *one* 
> customer that needed to come in using 3309; I punched a hole in the ACLs 
> for that one customer, and damn carefully.
> 
> > This is just *your* flawed perception. Have you bothered to be an
> > engineer and figure out _WHY_ it doesn't work?
> 
> Maybe you missed his earlier declaration:  "I'm a provider, not a 
> developer."  He expects the equipment to work.  It doesn't.  Did he ask 
> his vendor?  I don't know, but my personal experience with 
> wireless-equipment vendors is not encouraging.  Some people don't have 
> the money, resources, or time to winkle out all the wrinkles, so they go 
> with what works in their situation.  Consider the rural market:  damn 
> few customers, so $150K engineers are out of the question.

I also saw that he was using a tunnel yet was unwilling to configure
the local network to account for this when testing yet was willing
to bag IPv6 due to the side effects of being behind a tunnel.

IPv4 also works poorly when you introduce a tunnel and the people
you connect to are idiots that block / don't handle PTB messages.

Do like for like testing before bagging the protocol.

20% of the US eyeballs have working native IPv6 without lots of
complaints.  If you are have problems over a tunnel and they aren't
you may want to re-evalute your opinion of IPv6 and look to getting
native connections.

IPv6 really does work as well as IPv4 give like for like connections.

Mark

> > I run IPv6 over my 802.11a/b/g/n networks; no one has even noticed!
> > (even with Truly Ancient Hardware(tm))
> 
> That's your experience.  He has a different experience.  I suspect your 
> customer base is considerably more dense than tiedyenetwork.com's base. 
>   Did you say you are primarily a rural provider?  Mike did.  Your 
> earlier traffic suggests your base of operations is more in a city or 
> suburban environment.  Apples and oranges, if true.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Call for Participation in IEEE ICNP 2015

[Srihari Nelakuditi]

   Call for Participation in IEEE ICNP 2015

  ***  Group Rate Cutoff Date for Hotel: Oct 20 ***

  http://icnp15.cs.ucr.edu/
San Francisco, CA, USA
 November 10-13, 2015

We cordially invite you to participate in the 23rd edition of the IEEE
International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP 2015), covering
all aspects of network protocol research, including design, analysis,
specification, verification, implementation, and performance.

ICNP'15 will start off with a keynote lecture on "How Virtualization is
Changing Networking" by Bruce Davie, CTO, Networking at VMWARE. The
program consists of 3 days of single track sessions of 38 full paper
presentations as well as a PhD Forum.

Associated with ICNP'15 are two workshops, COntrol, Operation, and
appLication in SDN Protocols (CoolSDN) and GENI Network Innovators
Community Event (NICE). GENI NICE is a premier event for researchers
and educators to demonstrate, present research results and discuss
works in progress related to the NSF GENI testbed. Note that the
registration for GENI NICE is free.

Further details on the conference are available at
http://icnp15.cs.ucr.edu/

We are looking forward to seeing you in San Francisco, USA.

The ICNP'15 Organization Committee

NR Software\Xeex Communications

[Mike Hammett]

Does anyone know what's going on over there? Any not-front door phone numbers, 
e-mail addresses, etc.? I haven't been getting responses from them for a while. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

What’s the best way to get in contact with Network Operators and Engineers?

[Matthias Schroeder]

Hi,

I’m a UX designer in a startup and I'm doing a user research study about SDN 
products (It's basically interviews about the needs and pain-points of Network 
Operators and Engineers).

I already created the application form ( http://svy.mk/1MgC8gt ) and every 
interviewee will get a $100 VISA gift card, but now the questions is:
Do you have an idea how I can get participants for these interviews?

I already tried searching and inviting potential candidates via Linkedin (takes 
way too long) and Twitter (almost impossible to find the right candidates). 

I appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks very much in advance!

Re: NR Software\Xeex Communications

[Mike Hammett]

I know I'm going to be blowing the door wide open on this request, but I'd be 
interested in hearing from anyone else that was one of Equinix's first few 
customers. The deal I was getting on some services has been unrivaled, but the 
support I've received has been unrivaled in the not so pleasant way. It's time 
I just moved on. I need a vendor that responds at least within two weeks or 20 
messages, whichever is more. (Twenty sounds like a lot, but when spread out 
over two weeks following other weeks of non-response, I don't think it's out of 
line.) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "nanog group"  
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 1:38:43 PM 
Subject: NR Software\Xeex Communications 


Does anyone know what's going on over there? Any not-front door phone numbers, 
e-mail addresses, etc.? I haven't been getting responses from them for a while. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com