RE: Optical transceiver question

2016-09-11 Thread frnkblk 
In discussions with the reseller he admitted that they market the distance
based on average TX power and average link loss, so it is possible to
purchase optics that may not be able to attain certain necessary link
budgets and therefore distances.

There are 1270/1310 nm BiDi optics with a worst-case link margin of 19 dB.
Assuming a loss of 0.38 dB/km
(https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/optical-networking/ons-15454-son
et-multiservice-provisioning-platform-mspp/27042-max-att-27042.html) that's
just 50 km.  Of course, with a link margin of 24 dB that would be 61.5 km.
So unless you assume best-cast scenarios, 60 km is a stretch.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:36 PM
To: Frank Bulk 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Optical transceiver question

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Is it an industry practice to market distance based on the hot optics, 
> not on the worst case, which is minimum TX power?

No. If this is 1310nm optics with 0.4dB/km budget, the budget figure 
should be end-of-life figure, ie worst case according to the specs.

I don't like the "kilometer" figures, that can be marketed with very 
optimistic figures. However, if the transceiver says 0 to -5 transmit, if 
it doesn't transmit 0 to -5 then it's out of spec.

I treat the kilometer figure as "marketing", and look only at the optical 
specifications. So using your figures, if the device doesn't have 0 to -5 
out, and can receive error free at -20, then it's out of spec and it 
should be replaced free of charge.

However, if they market 1310nm with 15dB link budget at 60km reach, then 
I'd consder that false marketing.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?

2016-09-11 Thread Ca By 
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, Hugo Slabbert  wrote:

> Hopefully this is operational enough, though obviously leaning more
> towards the policy side of things:
>
> What does nanog think about a DDoS scrubber hijacking a network "for
> defensive purposes"?


Not ok.

Never.


>
> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/alleged-vdos-proprietors-arrested-in-
> israel/
>
> "For about six hours, we were seeing attacks of more than 200 Gbps hitting
> us,” Townsend explained. “What we were doing was for defensive purposes. We
> were simply trying to get them to stop and to gather as much information as
> possible about the botnet they were using and report that to the proper
> authorities.”
>
> --
> Hugo Slabbert   | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com 
> pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal

Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?

2016-09-11 Thread FHR

"Defensive" BGP hijacking?

2016-09-11 Thread Hugo Slabbert 
Hopefully this is operational enough, though obviously leaning more towards the 
policy side of things:

What does nanog think about a DDoS scrubber hijacking a network "for defensive 
purposes"?

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/alleged-vdos-proprietors-arrested-in-israel/

"For about six hours, we were seeing attacks of more than 200 Gbps hitting us,” 
Townsend explained. “What we were doing was for defensive purposes. We were 
simply trying to get them to stop and to gather as much information as possible 
about the botnet they were using and report that to the proper authorities.”

-- 
Hugo Slabbert   | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal

pgpnrhonJc0w1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Status of IPv6 on Charter Communications

2016-09-11 Thread David Hill 
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 06:55:59AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> Would someone at Charter Communications who is on this list indicate the 
> roll-out schedule for IPv6 to business customers using cable modems as 
> opposed to fiber links?

I too would appreciate this information.  I do see more networks being
announced: http://bgp.he.net/AS20115#_prefixes6.  Hopefully they will be
providing static IPv6 as well.

- David

Re: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Ca By 
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, Filip Hruska  wrote:

> If you really need them, you'll need to use some sort of tunneling
> mechanism, ie PPTP.
>
>

Friendly reminder, next week ios 10 drops


Prepare servers for iOS 10 & macOS Sierra. Crypto Deprecations:
- SSLv3
- RC4
- PPTP VPN
support.apple.com/en-us/HT206871
support.apple.com/en-us/HT206844


Regards,
> Filip
>
> On 11.9.2016 21:21, Ryan, Spencer wrote:
>
>> Having those ports exposed to the Internet is scary. Comcast is right in
>> blocking them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Randy Bush 
>> Date: 9/11/16 2:48 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Ca By 
>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
>> Subject: Re: comcast and msoft ports
>>
>> sigh.  well that was some fun hours debugging; not.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> randy
>>
>>

Re: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Randy Bush wrote:


sigh.  well that was some fun hours debugging; not.


135/137/139/445 has seen widespread filtering since... errr.. 2000? I know 
it was widely done back in those days when people were connecting their 
computers directly to the bridged modem/ETTH jack and things ended up in 
the newspapers that peoples files were available on the Internet because 
they didn't set a password on their windows share or when versions of 
Windows were pwned during installation of Windows because... Windows.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Filip Hruska 
If you really need them, you'll need to use some sort of tunneling 
mechanism, ie PPTP.


Regards,
Filip

On 11.9.2016 21:21, Ryan, Spencer wrote:

Having those ports exposed to the Internet is scary. Comcast is right in 
blocking them.



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


 Original message 
From: Randy Bush 
Date: 9/11/16 2:48 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Ca By 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: comcast and msoft ports

sigh.  well that was some fun hours debugging; not.

thanks

randy

RE: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Ryan, Spencer 
Having those ports exposed to the Internet is scary. Comcast is right in 
blocking them.



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


 Original message 
From: Randy Bush 
Date: 9/11/16 2:48 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Ca By 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: comcast and msoft ports

sigh.  well that was some fun hours debugging; not.

thanks

randy

Re: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Randy Bush 
sigh.  well that was some fun hours debugging; not.

thanks

randy

RE: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Ryan, Spencer 
https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/internet/list-of-blocked-ports/




Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


 Original message 
From: Randy Bush 
Date: 9/11/16 2:35 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: comcast and msoft ports

anyone know if comcast residential filters 139/445?

randy

Re: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Ca By 
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, Randy Bush  wrote:

> anyone know if comcast residential filters 139/445?
>
> randy
>


https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/internet/list-of-blocked-ports/

comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Randy Bush 
anyone know if comcast residential filters 139/445?

randy