- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Youtube CDN unreachable over IPv6
by Seth Mos 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

Dear Google, It appears that one of the Youtube CDN's (in Europe, NL) is not reachable over IPv6 from AS 20844. Can someone get back to us on this, the company can't access any of the videos currently, although the mainpage loads fine (over IPv6). Kind regards, Seth telnet r6---sn-5hne6n76.googlevideo.com 443 Trying 2a00:1450:401c:4::b... telnet: connect to address 2a00:1450:401c:4::b: Connection timed out Trying 74.125.100.203... Connected to r6.sn-5hne6n76.googlevideo.com (74.125.100.203). Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. telnet www.youtube.com 443 Trying 2a00:1450:4013:c01::5d... Connected to youtube-ui.l.google.com (2a00:1450:4013:c01::5d). Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host.

6 8

[TECH] PPPoE server on ASR 920
by Nicolas Even 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Hi. I need some help. I hope some of you are able to help me :) I configured a pppoe server on a brand new asr 920 plateform (advanced metro ip access) but it's not working. My set up is trivial : 1/ Add a bba-group and a virtual template : bba-group pppoe BBAPPPOE virtual-template 1 sessions per-mac limit 2 interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered Loopback0 no peer default ip address ppp authentication pap CPE_USER 2/ Then, configure the Radius : aaa group server radius<removed> server<removed> auth-port 1812 acct-port 1813 ip radius source-interface Loopback0 ! aaa authentication ppp CPE_USER group <removed> aaa authorization network default group removed> radius-server host<removed> auth-port 1812 acct-port 1813 key 7 <removed> 3/ Finally, I configured an interface accepting pppoe : interface GigabitEthernet0/0/4 description TEST-PPPOE no ip address media-type rj45 negotiation auto pppoe enable group BBAPPPOE A router, plugged on the interface Gi 0/0/4, is sending pado packets but ASR920 is not seeing these packets : Counters does not increment, debug says nothing. ASR920-ALE-1#sh pppoe statistics But I can see input packets with ASR920-ALE-1# sh interfaces Gi 0/0/4 Has anyone have experience with pppoe server on a ASR920 ? Thanks a lot :) Nicolas.

2 1

SMS gateways
by David Hubbard 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom’s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it’s only 2G so likely won’t be viable much longer. The other question, given the fact that they’re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ‘machine’ plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ‘machine’ plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. Thanks, David

11 18

Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
by Valdis Kletnieks 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimi… Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time. "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie /me makes popcorn....

19 34

IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior
by Graham Johnston 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Hi nanog, We are little behind in our IPv6 rollout are pushing to make big strides by the end of Q2. We have all of our core network and primary infrastructure dual-stack enabled at this point and our next step will be to move to dual-stack on our CMTSs. For those retail operators that have enabled dual-stack can you comment on behavior that you observed from customer CPE equipment after flipping the switch? Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? For those that are responding I am primarily concerned about customer routers. I have followed the many discussions about Android phones that don't perform DHCPv6, and I am really concerned about these kind of issues as these devices basically won't be seen at the edge of the customer's network. If you have something else that you think is noteworthy, I'm all ears. Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong(a)westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com> P think green; don't print this email.

4 4

Nat
by Ahmed Munaf 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Dear All, We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand like A10 or Citrix. Please any advice regarding the three brands and what are the advantages and disadvantages for each one? Regards,

38 74

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
by Sander Steffann 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

> Op 11 jan. 2016, om 15:05 heeft Vint Cerf <vint(a)google.com> het volgende geschreven: > > sounds like the Federal Reserve testing the waters with hints of increasing discount rate... :)

1 0

Re: GPON vs. GEPON
by Baldur Norddahl 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

We do not sell TV but that means our customers are cable cutters that do a ton of Netflix, HBO Nordic, ViaSat, SBS, DR TV etc streaming. Our traffic level per customer is about the double of what others report. VoIP is not very popular, but people do that too. In either case traffic levels from VoIP is so low that it is below the noise floor. When you can get 940 Mbit/s transfer rates with 1 ms latency and no jitter, a single 64 Kbit/s voice stream is not going to be a problem. We point customers to third party SIP providers and everyone are happy with that. Do the math: a Netflix HD stream is about 5 Mbit/s. How many such stream can you have with 2,4 Gbit/s capacity on a GPON OLT? Yes a lot. You might say but every home has at least 5 TVs now, so with 64 users you need to be able to do 5 times 64 times 5 Mbit/s (*). But it simply does not work that way. We are very far from a situation where it works that way. Instead we monitor the traffic levels, and if sometime in the future the peak traffic becomes a problem, we are ready to either lower the split ratio or invest in the next technology (probably some kind of x*10 Gbit/s PON). Until then we take the cost savings of using a split ratio that works in the real world. (*) nobody has a backbone that can cope with that kind of traffic either. Regards, Baldur On 9 January 2016 at 05:41, Josh Reynolds <josh(a)kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > And you are doing 6+ stream IPTV and VoIP as well? > On Jan 8, 2016 9:58 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds <josh(a)kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >> >>> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards >>> are >>> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG >>> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. >>> >> >> That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT and >> a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just works. >> The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more users >> on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64 >> users per OLT). >> >> Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s internet >> is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the expected >> 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all time >> of day, also at peak usage. >> >> Regards, >> >> Baldur >> >> >> >> >> >

3 3

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
by Sander Steffann 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Hi Vint, > Op 11 jan. 2016, om 12:47 heeft Vint Cerf <vint(a)google.com> het volgende geschreven: > > since google is a major implementor of IPv6, some people might claim this is an attempt to artificially inflate scores for Google sites. Sigh. Sigh indeed. On the other hand: IPv6 is getting enough traction that it can't be considered a "Google thing". A thought: Maybe Google could announce that because of the increasing scarcity of IPv4 addresses and the rise of global IPv6 deployment Google is considering to start taking IPv6 reachability into account later this year. That would give the possibility for Google to watch how people respond before actually changing anything, it would take away some arguments of those that blame Google for artificially inflating scores (they have been warned long in advance) and it would make SEO companies more aware of IPv6 so they can start pushing the ISPs and hosters to support IPv6. Google already provides webmaster tools. Maybe showing a warning for websites that aren't reachable over IPv6 (or even worse: that have completely different content on IPv6) would be nice. Even if IPv6 reachability doesn't affect the page rank (yet) the number of users with IPv6+IPv4-CGN is growing so enabling IPv6 will have a positive impact on a growing number of eyeballs (see Facebook's experience with IPv6 performance). Showing warning messages on Google Webmaster Tools when the site is not reachable over IPv6 (and error messages when the IPv4 content is very different from the IPv6 content) would be nice. Even if Google gets so much pushback that they decide not to go forward with this at this point in time it might already cause some good awareness for IPv6. Even though IPv6 is growing all over the world I still think Google doing something like this would help a lot. Cheers, Sander

1 0

Anonymous Threats
by Eric Rogers 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. He/she is taunting them, local and federal. I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the source. Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list if you do respond... Thanks in advance. Eric Rogers www.pdsconnect.me (317) 831-3000 x200

8 9