Re: CenturyLink
Looks like we lost sync intermittently across several of their servers last night. Cleared up around midnight mountain for me. Let's chip in and get some carrier diversity for those guys :) Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 28, 2018 4:23 PM, Yang Yu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote: > > > Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the > > post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but > > for everyone on the west coast. > > Looks like mosttime.nist.gov servers (3 x NIST sites on AS49) are > single homed on CenturyLink, anyone noticed NTP issues yesterday? > > https://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
Re: CenturyLink
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the > post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but > for everyone on the west coast. Looks like most time.nist.gov servers (3 x NIST sites on AS49) are single homed on CenturyLink, anyone noticed NTP issues yesterday? https://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
Re: CenturyLink...is being investigated by the FCC
Ouch. Feel bad for the guys on the ground at C-link. Not a fun 24 hours. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 28, 2018 3:17 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > And the other latest news is that the FCC is investigating the CenturyLink > outage: > > https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/fcc-investigating-centurylink-outage-says-unacceptable/ > > > On Dec 28, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Patrick Boyle via NANOG nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > Yes, there were 911 services affected. The latest word from C-link as of > > 1:46PM mountain is that all 911 services are restored where they are the > > provider. I'm not 100% sure if that's system-wide, or just my area in the > > northwest, however. > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Friday, December 28, 2018 1:03 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 07:07:42AM +, > > > Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote > > > a message of 131 lines which said: > > > > > > > CenturyLink will be conducting an extensive post-incident > > > > investigation and root cause analysis to provide follow-up > > > > information to our customers > > > > > > Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the > > > post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but > > > for everyone on the west coast.
Re: CenturyLink...is being investigated by the FCC
And the other latest news is that the FCC is investigating the CenturyLink outage: https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/fcc-investigating-centurylink-outage-says-unacceptable/ > On Dec 28, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Patrick Boyle via NANOG wrote: > > Yes, there were 911 services affected. The latest word from C-link as of > 1:46PM mountain is that all 911 services are restored where they are the > provider. I'm not 100% sure if that's system-wide, or just my area in the > northwest, however. > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, December 28, 2018 1:03 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 07:07:42AM +, >> Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote >> a message of 131 lines which said: >> >>> CenturyLink will be conducting an extensive post-incident >>> investigation and root cause analysis to provide follow-up >>> information to our customers >> >> Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the >> post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but >> for everyone on the west coast. > >
Re: CenturyLink
Yes, there were 911 services affected. The latest word from C-link as of 1:46PM mountain is that all 911 services are restored where they are the provider. I'm not 100% sure if that's system-wide, or just my area in the northwest, however. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 28, 2018 1:03 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 07:07:42AM +, > Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote > a message of 131 lines which said: > > > CenturyLink will be conducting an extensive post-incident > > investigation and root cause analysis to provide follow-up > > information to our customers > > Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the > post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but > for everyone on the west coast.
Re: Pinging a Device Every Second
Thus spake Christian Meutes (christ...@errxtx.net) on Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 02:41:23PM +0100: > Depending on your requirements and scale - but I read you want history - > it's probably less a demand on CPU or network resources, but more on IOPS. > > If you cache all results before writing to disk, then it's not much of a > problem, but by just going "let's use RRD/MRTG for this" your IOPS could > become the first problem. So you might look into a proper timeseries > backend or use a caching daemon for RRD. Having once written a caching daemon for mrtg/rrdtool, the advent of SSD arrays has made iops largely irrelevant. (I had ~ 1.2M targets in mrtg on that machine) Dale > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 4:48 PM Colton Conor wrote: > > > How much compute and network resources does it take for a NMS to: > > > > 1. ICMP ping a device every second > > 2. Record these results. > > 3. Report an alarm after so many seconds of missed pings. > > > > We are looking for a system to in near real-time monitor if an end > > customers router is up or down. SNMP I assume would be too resource > > intensive, so ICMP pings seem like the only logical solution. > > > > The question is once a second pings too polling on an NMS and a consumer > > grade router? Does it take much network bandwidth and CPU resources from > > both the NMS and CPE side? > > > > Lets say this is for a 1,000 customer ISP. > > > > > > > > -- > Christian Meutes > > e-mail/xmpp: christ...@errxtx.net > mobile: +49 176 32370305 > PGP Fingerprint: B458 E4D6 7173 A8C4 9C75315B 709C 295B FA53 2318 > Toulouser Allee 21, 40211 Duesseldorf, Germany
Re: Cellular backup connections
> leave them on an old router where they’ve been for years. I can’t name names obviously, but you’d be astonished how often I see this and who the big names are. - Ben Cannon, AS15206
Re: Cellular backup connections
I really can't believe I'm going to say this, but this has been a good SD-WAN use case for us. Scott Helms On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 2:30 PM Aaron1 wrote: > On the topic of static ip... as a Net Eng of an ISP, and seeing the pains > that we have to endure with our static ip customers , I wonder if static ip > customers actually inadvertently get less optimal treatment than more > flexible, agile and dynamic ip customers ? > > I’m saying that since over the years as I have migrated from one router to > another, from one technology Ethernet/IP, mpls/ip, it’s more difficult to > move those static customers subnets around, and sometimes easier just to > leave them on an old router where they’ve been for years. > > Aaron > > On Dec 28, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Jared Geiger wrote: > > I found horrible routing with a static IP setup with T-Mobile. The device > was located in Ashburn, outbound routing would go out via Dallas and > inbound would come in via Seattle. So ping times and usability was rough. > Tried it on the west coast and the same problem. T-Mobile support said this > was by design and they couldn’t change it. > > I decided to switch to a regular consumer AT&T data sim without a static > IP and set up a small router to initiate a VPN tunnel out to wherever I > need it. It turns out to be cheaper and reliable for us. > > ~Jared Geiger > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ryan Wilkins wrote: > >> You mention your connection is 4G. On T-Mobile 4G is UMTS whereas LTE >> is, well, LTE. Are you really on UMTS (which I would expect to have much >> crazier RTTs and jitter like you report) or did you mean LTE? >> >> Ryan >> >> > On Dec 28, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: >> > >> > Hi All, >> > >> > I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new >> POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength is >> at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection seems >> rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for instance now I >> am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is >> that just cellular or is that more related to the provider and the location >> where I am? I could in theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon >> they charge $500.00 just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if >> possible. >> > >> > Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic. >> > >> > >> >>
Re: Cellular backup connections
On the topic of static ip... as a Net Eng of an ISP, and seeing the pains that we have to endure with our static ip customers , I wonder if static ip customers actually inadvertently get less optimal treatment than more flexible, agile and dynamic ip customers ? I’m saying that since over the years as I have migrated from one router to another, from one technology Ethernet/IP, mpls/ip, it’s more difficult to move those static customers subnets around, and sometimes easier just to leave them on an old router where they’ve been for years. Aaron > On Dec 28, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Jared Geiger wrote: > > I found horrible routing with a static IP setup with T-Mobile. The device was > located in Ashburn, outbound routing would go out via Dallas and inbound > would come in via Seattle. So ping times and usability was rough. Tried it on > the west coast and the same problem. T-Mobile support said this was by design > and they couldn’t change it. > > I decided to switch to a regular consumer AT&T data sim without a static IP > and set up a small router to initiate a VPN tunnel out to wherever I need it. > It turns out to be cheaper and reliable for us. > > ~Jared Geiger > >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ryan Wilkins wrote: >> You mention your connection is 4G. On T-Mobile 4G is UMTS whereas LTE is, >> well, LTE. Are you really on UMTS (which I would expect to have much >> crazier RTTs and jitter like you report) or did you mean LTE? >> >> Ryan >> >> > On Dec 28, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: >> > >> > Hi All, >> > >> > I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new >> > POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength >> > is at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection >> > seems rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for instance >> > now I am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) >> > . Is that just cellular or is that more related to the provider and the >> > location where I am? I could in theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With >> > Verizon they charge $500.00 just to get a public IP and I want to avoid >> > that if possible. >> > >> > Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic. >> > >> > >>
Re: Cellular backup connections
I found horrible routing with a static IP setup with T-Mobile. The device was located in Ashburn, outbound routing would go out via Dallas and inbound would come in via Seattle. So ping times and usability was rough. Tried it on the west coast and the same problem. T-Mobile support said this was by design and they couldn’t change it. I decided to switch to a regular consumer AT&T data sim without a static IP and set up a small router to initiate a VPN tunnel out to wherever I need it. It turns out to be cheaper and reliable for us. ~Jared Geiger On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ryan Wilkins wrote: > You mention your connection is 4G. On T-Mobile 4G is UMTS whereas LTE is, > well, LTE. Are you really on UMTS (which I would expect to have much > crazier RTTs and jitter like you report) or did you mean LTE? > > Ryan > > > On Dec 28, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new > POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength is > at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection seems > rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for instance now I > am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is > that just cellular or is that more related to the provider and the location > where I am? I could in theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon > they charge $500.00 just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if > possible. > > > > Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic. > > > > > >
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 29 Dec, 2018 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 732568 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 281558 Deaggregation factor: 2.60 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 352396 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 62800 Prefixes per ASN: 11.67 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 54121 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 23521 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:8679 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:267 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.2 Max AS path length visible: 31 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 16327) 25 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:23 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:25 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 25337 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 20536 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 88512 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:17 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:259 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2839468257 Equivalent to 169 /8s, 62 /16s and 216 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.7 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.1 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 244625 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 200435 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 56892 APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.52 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 197466 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:81144 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9321 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.19 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2630 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1388 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.1 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4321 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 769522432 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 221 /16s and 251 /24s APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-139577 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:216519 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 102857 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.11 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 215874 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:103478 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18306 ARIN Prefixes per ASN:11.79 ARIN Regi
Re: Cellular backup connections
You mention your connection is 4G. On T-Mobile 4G is UMTS whereas LTE is, well, LTE. Are you really on UMTS (which I would expect to have much crazier RTTs and jitter like you report) or did you mean LTE? Ryan > On Dec 28, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: > > Hi All, > > I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new POP. I > am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength is at 80%. > The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection seems rather > slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for instance now I am seeing: > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is that just > cellular or is that more related to the provider and the location where I am? > I could in theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon they charge > $500.00 just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if possible. > > Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic. > >
Re: Cellular backup connections
Check the route your taking when you use the cell phone as a hotspot and when
you use the LTE modem. The carrier may be using different paths.
You may want to engage the vendor of your modem as well to make sure everything
in it is configured correctly. Depending on the device there are a lot of
tricky things that can be done with them.
I only have experience with Cradlepoints and have used AT&T and Verizon. I
know VZW used to route their "business grade" modems differently than their
cell phones and consumer hotspots. I've been told VZW fixed the issue of
having to put different tower configurations into the Cradlepoints (I believe
the last time I set one up they were able to provision it without me
configuring anything).
High pings and high latency (compared to dedicated connections) have always
been normal from my experience but with a decent signal it should still be
better than a traditional DSL connection for example.
Brian
From: NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 4:29 AM
To: Brandon Martin
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Cellular backup connections
It's strange. When we use T-Mo on an andriod device the ping times are 30-40
ms. When we try with the modem + raritn console box it jumps to min of 100+ ms
(the modem is high up on top of the rack and we test with the phones we are on
the floor) - Can 5 feet higher make it that much worse?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:23 AM Brandon Martin
mailto:lists.na...@monmotha.net>> wrote:
On 12/28/18 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new
> POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength
> is at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection
> seems rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for
> instance now I am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev =
> 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is that just cellular or is that
> more related to the provider and the location where I am? I could in
> theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon they charge $500.00
> just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if possible.
>
> Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic.
LTE with a good connection on a lightly loaded cell should be
significantly less than that in both absolute terms as well as jitter.
I used LTE (Sprint) for a couple years as my primary connectivity when I
moved out into an area with zero connectivity (fixing that now). I
typically saw ~30-40ms to Chicago, which is the nearest major carrier
PoP. Jitter was typically less than 10ms. VoIP was usable. Others in
the area on other carriers have reported similar.
Sprint gave me a public IP with no up front charges but did charge $5/mo
for it.
As you're probably aware, the "signal strength" ("bars") indicators that
are presented to the consumer-facing interfaces are often very cooked.
Depending on which RSSI you're looking at, a "very good" signal is
probably in the realm of -70dBm to -110dBm (note that there are two RSSI
metrics commonly used with LTE, and they tend to differ by ~20dB).
--
Brandon Martin
Re: Cellular backup connections
> On Dec 28, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: > > It's strange. When we use T-Mo on an andriod device the ping times are 30-40 > ms. When we try with the modem + raritn console box it jumps to min of 100+ > ms (the modem is high up on top of the rack and we test with the phones we > are on the floor) - Can 5 feet higher make it that much worse? In the world of RF of course. Are you on a v6v4 APN as well? Is your v4 taking a longer route to go via CGN while v6 goes native? - Jared
Re: Cellular backup connections
It's strange. When we use T-Mo on an andriod device the ping times are
30-40 ms. When we try with the modem + raritn console box it jumps to min
of 100+ ms (the modem is high up on top of the rack and we test with the
phones we are on the floor) - Can 5 feet higher make it that much worse?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:23 AM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> On 12/28/18 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new
> > POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength
> > is at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection
> > seems rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for
> > instance now I am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev =
> > 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is that just cellular or is that
> > more related to the provider and the location where I am? I could in
> > theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon they charge $500.00
> > just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if possible.
> >
> > Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic.
>
> LTE with a good connection on a lightly loaded cell should be
> significantly less than that in both absolute terms as well as jitter.
>
> I used LTE (Sprint) for a couple years as my primary connectivity when I
> moved out into an area with zero connectivity (fixing that now). I
> typically saw ~30-40ms to Chicago, which is the nearest major carrier
> PoP. Jitter was typically less than 10ms. VoIP was usable. Others in
> the area on other carriers have reported similar.
>
> Sprint gave me a public IP with no up front charges but did charge $5/mo
> for it.
>
> As you're probably aware, the "signal strength" ("bars") indicators that
> are presented to the consumer-facing interfaces are often very cooked.
> Depending on which RSSI you're looking at, a "very good" signal is
> probably in the realm of -70dBm to -110dBm (note that there are two RSSI
> metrics commonly used with LTE, and they tend to differ by ~20dB).
>
> --
> Brandon Martin
>
Re: Cellular backup connections
On 12/28/18 7:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
Hi All,
I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new
POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength
is at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection
seems rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for
instance now I am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev =
174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is that just cellular or is that
more related to the provider and the location where I am? I could in
theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon they charge $500.00
just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if possible.
Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic.
LTE with a good connection on a lightly loaded cell should be
significantly less than that in both absolute terms as well as jitter.
I used LTE (Sprint) for a couple years as my primary connectivity when I
moved out into an area with zero connectivity (fixing that now). I
typically saw ~30-40ms to Chicago, which is the nearest major carrier
PoP. Jitter was typically less than 10ms. VoIP was usable. Others in
the area on other carriers have reported similar.
Sprint gave me a public IP with no up front charges but did charge $5/mo
for it.
As you're probably aware, the "signal strength" ("bars") indicators that
are presented to the consumer-facing interfaces are often very cooked.
Depending on which RSSI you're looking at, a "very good" signal is
probably in the realm of -70dBm to -110dBm (note that there are two RSSI
metrics commonly used with LTE, and they tend to differ by ~20dB).
--
Brandon Martin
Re: Cellular backup connections
I’ve found the antenna choice and placement can make a huge difference in a data center environment. In some cases it required going to a directional high gain antenna pointed towards a desirable tower, which we found by having someone monitor / reload the Opengear web interface while another person moved the antenna around, to figure out where the best signal strength was produced. Ours are all Verizon units, but in data centers near some VZ towers, the little omnidirectional paddle antennas that come with the Opengear boxes have been sufficient, even if the unit is mounted in a rack. Even with ping times being in the 150-300ms range, normally SSH isn’t too bad, but it’s certainly not snappy. I’d say it’s not quite as bad as trying to use SSH via Wifi on a Southwest flight, but not as good as a serial console connection. From: NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender Date: Friday, December 28, 2018 at 7:08 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cellular backup connections Hi All, I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength is at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection seems rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for instance now I am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is that just cellular or is that more related to the provider and the location where I am? I could in theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon they charge $500.00 just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if possible. Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic.
Cellular backup connections
Hi All, I finally got around to setting up a cellular backup device in our new POP. I am currently testing with T-Mobile where the cell signal strength is at 80%. The connection is 4G. When SSH'ing in remotely the connection seems rather slow. Ping times seem to be all over the place (for instance now I am seeing: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.142/336.792/555.574/99.599 ms) . Is that just cellular or is that more related to the provider and the location where I am? I could in theory test with VZ and ATT as well. With Verizon they charge $500.00 just to get a public IP and I want to avoid that if possible. Thanks and sorry in advance if this is off topic.
Re: CenturyLink
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 07:07:42AM +, Erik Sundberg wrote a message of 131 lines which said: > CenturyLink will be conducting an extensive post-incident > investigation and root cause analysis to provide follow-up > information to our customers Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but for everyone on the west coast.
