- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Fyi...
by Robert Mathews (OSIA) 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

It it is of interest... https://www.change.org/petitions/from-educause-higher-ed-wireless-networkin… All the best. -- /************************************************ * Dr. Robert Mathews, D.Phil. * Distinguished Senior Research Scholar * National Security Affairs & U.S Industrial Preparedness * Office of Scientific Inquiry and Applications * University of Hawai'i * E.mail: mathews at hawaii dot edu/

2 2

dnsmadeeasy.com
by Matt Ryanczak 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

Looking for experiences regarding their DNS hosting services. Anyone have a story to share? Off-list replies would be great. thanks, ~matt

1 0

Re: [c-nsp] DOCSIS 3.0 & PPPoE/L2TP compatibility
by iptech 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

Ray, Yes PITA indeed. Our 7200 are G2, but we were still planning on moving away from them. I presume you guys are staying on the 7200s meantime, to accomodate the PPTP requirement? Thanks, On 7/31/2012 10:35 PM, Ray Burkholder wrote: > As far as I can tell, and from my conversations with the guys at Cablevision, there isn't anything underhanded. The ARRIS gear simply doesn't do PPPOE stuff. They've looked at various scenarios, and PPTP seems to be the winner. > > Their Cisco CMTS gear was EOL'd a long time ago, and I don't think there is/was a migration path for handling recent DOCSIS and speeds. So they side stepped it. Their ARRIS box is a single chassis with a redundant cards in it. With DOCSIS 3, they get better speeds and stuff out of it. > > I havn't seen the numbers, but I gather it will handily handle all the traffic for all the ISP's. > > It does become a PITA for us as ISP's, as we have to convert all our subscribers over to PPTP. > > What are you doing with your old 7200's? Are they G2's? > > Ray. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cisco-nsp-bounces(a)puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- >> bounces(a)puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of iptech >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:28 >> To: Brian Mengel >> Cc: cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DOCSIS 3.0 & PPPoE/L2TP compatibility >> >> Thanks Brian, >> >> I am struggling with this one, as I suspect the cableco are skipping >> round a problem with their in house setup, and trying to make me bend to >> get it working, which I am reluctant to do, as its a big step backwards >> for us. >> >> They are moving from a Cisco CMTS to a Arris, therefore it is highly >> possible this will be a new box. What they have told me is that their >> CMTS setup will now be L3 as opposed to L2. The reasons behind this are >> not clear. >> >> Appreciate any pointers on this one. >> >> Thanks v much. >> >> On 7/31/2012 11:54 AM, Brian Mengel wrote: >>> We run a mix of Cisco and Arris CMTS in our network and have found >>> both to share the same feature set (at least for the features we >>> need). If there is a problem with L2TP its not going to be the result >>> of the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade but rather an issue with the Arris CMTS. I >>> would recommend getting a technical contact at Arris from your partner >>> MSO and explaining your situation to them and seeing what they can >>> provide as a resolution. Its possible that the Arris outright doesn't >>> support L2TP, but I suspect there may be other things going on. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM, iptech <iptech(a)northrock.bm> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> No takers? >>>> >>>> Would really appreciate some feedback/pointers. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/27/2012 2:57 PM, iptech wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> We are a small ISP and have a setup in place with the local cable >> company >>>>> for terminating their users via L2TP for Internet access. However they >> have >>>>> just announced to us that they are moving to a DOCSIS 3.0 compliant >> setup, >>>>> and this standard no longer supports PPPoE via L2TP, and can now only >> offer >>>>> PPTP for terminating with us. >>>>> >>>>> We have already begun replacing our Cisco 7206VXR LNS devices with >> Cisco >>>>> ASR 1Ks and as you will be aware the older 7206 can do both L2TP and >> PPTP, >>>>> whereas the ASR1k can do only L2TP. >>>>> >>>>> I do not have any experience in the cable arena, but from what I have >> read >>>>> in the DOCSIS standards, each version has maintained backwards >>>>> compatibility, therefore I am very surprised our CableCo has claimed >> they >>>>> cannot do PPPoE/L2TP anymore. >>>>> >>>>> The CMTS they are currently using is a Cisco, and now they are moving to >> a >>>>> new ARRIS CMTS. I have not been able to find any information on this >> device >>>>> and what it can do or not. >>>>> >>>>> With the ASR1K marked as the natural upgrade path for LNS functions, >>>>> therefore I cannot believe that it is not fully compatible with DOCSIS 3.0. >>>>> >>>>> From what I can tell the only way to accommodate the new CMTS PPTP >>>>> connections will be to terminate them on the legacy 7206VXR, which at >> the >>>>> end of the day is a backwards step. >>>>> >>>>> I would greatly appreciate if anyone can give me any pointers and/or >>>>> suggestions on this matter, so I can understand it and move it forward. >>>>> >>>>> FYI: The driver for the CMTS upgrades is to offer higher bandwidth >> access >>>>> speeds 15mb-20mb. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net >>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >

2 1

DOCSIS 3.0 & PPPoE/L2TP compatibility
by iptech 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

Hi, We are a small ISP and have a setup in place with the local cable company for terminating their users via L2TP for Internet access. However they have just announced to us that they are moving to a DOCSIS 3.0 compliant setup, and this standard no longer supports PPPoE via L2TP, and can now only offer PPTP for terminating with us. We have already begun replacing our Cisco 7206VXR LNS devices with Cisco ASR 1Ks and as you will be aware the older 7206 can do both L2TP and PPTP, whereas the ASR1k can do only L2TP. I do not have any experience in the cable arena, but from what I have read in the DOCSIS standards, each version has maintained backwards compatibility, therefore I am very surprised our CableCo has claimed they cannot do PPPoE/L2TP anymore. The CMTS they are currently using is a Cisco, and now they are moving to a new ARRIS CMTS. I have not been able to find any information on this device and what it can do or not. With the ASR1K marked as the natural upgrade path for LNS functions, therefore I cannot believe that it is not fully compatible with DOCSIS 3.0. From what I can tell the only way to accommodate the new CMTS PPTP connections will be to terminate them on the legacy 7206VXR, which at the end of the day is a backwards step. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can give me any pointers and/or suggestions on this matter, so I can understand it and move it forward. FYI: The driver for the CMTS upgrades is to offer higher bandwidth access speeds 15mb-20mb. Thank you.

5 6

Fiji Islands
by Philip Lavine 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

Who offeres Internet Bandwidth in Fiji Islands (Lautoka and Yaqara)?

5 10

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 55 Survey Highlights and Upcoming NANOG 56/ARIN XXX
by Sylvie LaPerriere 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

NANOG Colleagues, NANOG 55 Attendees, We hope you are having a great Summer. We are already hard at work preparing for NANOG 56/ARIN XXX in Dallas. Take a moment now to register for the conference and book your hotel room at http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog56/nanog56_registration.html We had 525 registrants in Vancouver last June and I want to share the surveys highlights. The survey participation rate was 14%. We are thankful for your answers as knowing your preferences increases the likelihood of planning future 'awesome' events for you. Highlights: * Your top 3 reasons to attend NANOG are 1) network with colleague 2) the agenda (program) quality and content 3) tutorials. Closely followed by 4) socials, 5) keynotes and 6) location. * You rated the quality of our speakers, the quality of the technical information presented and the technical relevance of topics as either 'excellent' or 'very good'. * You are generally not commenting about the NANOG conference on social media platforms during the event. * 78% of attendees were able to successfully associate to the wireless network on their first attempt * You thought the Westin was great for its location, its setting and its amenities (nice to know for future picks!) * You come to NANOG to meet new people, socially interact with colleagues and learn. * You generally are not a subscriber to our mailing lists: nanog@, nanog-announce@, nanog-futures@ First-Time attendees enjoyed their NANOG experience and are hopeful that they will be able to return to future meetings. Some are even planning to bring along colleagues. Comments for speakers were really appreciated. We shared with those presenting, thereby helping speakers with future presentations and communicating attendees' expectations with respect to presentation content and its delivery. The Food & Beverage (F&B) comments were great. You are generally very pleased with the quality and the variety. We note that your level of satisfaction increases if you are continuously caffeinated or hydrated during the day and if offered plenty of beer/wine/spirits/sodas during the evenings. We took good note of your suggestions and look for them at NANOG 56. Special thanks for embracing (ie not complaining) our 'green options' : favouring large dispensers over individual plastic bottles or cans saves us lots of money and reduces our environmental footprint. For the curious-minded, detailed results are posted at http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/surveys.html. Consider joining the mailing lists at http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/ Thanks again to all who attended, presented, and sponsored our return trip to Canada with NANOG 55. It was a great experience and we will not wait another 5 years to return to Canada. We look forward to seeing everyone again at NANOG 56/ARIN XXX! Sincerely, Sylvie -- Sylvie LaPerriere NANOG Board Chair - www.nanog.org _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

You thought you had... wiring issues!!!
by Network IPdog 31 Jul '12

31 Jul '12

Mates. WiringIssues.jpg Ephesians 4:32 & Cheers!!! A password is like a... toothbrush ;^) Choose a good one, change it regularly and don't share it.

5 5

mail.yahoo.com
by Kain, Rebecca (.) 31 Jul '12

31 Jul '12

It just stopped loading for me and when it did come up, and I got a "terms of agreement" new pop up which circles in an endless loop no matter what you click. Anyone else seeing this today at yahoo.com?

2 1

Qwest outage (Tampa)
by Dylan Bouterse 31 Jul '12

31 Jul '12

Is anybody familiar with the current Qwest outage in the Tampa area? Dylan

2 1

Re: Update from the NANOG Communications Committee regarding recent off-topic posts
by Brian Dickson 30 Jul '12

30 Jul '12

> > As a quick update, we've implemented some list settings last week to help > to > > keep spam off the list. New subscribers are moderated until we're > comfortable > with their posts. We rejected the idea of keyword based message filtering > since not only is a lot of work to maintain, it's trivial to get around it > if > you really want to post banned words. > Comments and suggestions are welcome. > Matt Griswold, on behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee > > I've always liked the idea found in xkcd.com/810 ;-). Brian

2 1