March 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

L.A Network Outages today,
by Ray Sanders 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Sorry if this is better handled by outages, but anyone in the L.A area have an idea about the network/phone outages today in L.A? We've seen issues with x.o, but not sure of the full scope. Thanks. Mobile email powered by the force...

1 0

Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> wrote: > Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no connectivity at = > all. Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines. Hmm. Although I've never been to Western MA and hence have no idea what the telecom situation is like over there, I'm certainly aware of quite a few places in "first world USA" where DSL is still a fantasy, let alone fiber. As a local example, I have a friend in a rural area of Southern California who can't get any kind of "high-speed Internet". I've run a prequal on her address and it tells me she is 31 kft from the CO. The CO in question has a Covad DSLAM in it, but at 31 kft those rural residents' options are limited to either IDSL at 144 kbps (not much point in that) or a T1 starting at ~$700/month. The latter figure is typically well out of range for the kind of people who live in such places. That got me thinking: ISDN/IDSL and T1 can be extended infinitely far into the boondocks because those signal formats support repeaters. What I'm wondering is how can we do the same thing with SDSL - and I mean politically rather than technically. The technical part is easy: some COs already have CLECs in them that serve G.shdsl (I've been told that NEN does that) and for G.shdsl repeaters are part of the standard (searching around shows a few vendors making them); in the case of SDSL/2B1Q (Covad and DSL.net) there is no official support for repeaters and hence no major vendors making such, but I can build such a repeater unofficially. The difficulty is with the political part, and that's where I'm seeking the wisdom of this list. How would one go about sticking a mid-span repeater into an ILEC-owned 31 kft rural loop? From what I understand (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!), when a CLEC orders a loop from an ILEC, if it's for a T1 or IDSL, the CLEC actually orders a T1 or ISDN BRI transport from the ILEC rather than a dry pair, and any mid-span repeaters or HDSLx converters or the like become the responsibility of the ILEC rather than the CLEC, right? So how could one extend this model to provide, say, repeatered G.shdsl service to far-outlying rural subscribers? Is there some political process (PUC/FCC/etc) by which an ILEC could be forced to allow a third party to stick a repeater in the middle of their loop? Or would it have to work by way of the ILEC providing a G.shdsl transport service to CLECs, with the ILEC being responsible for the selection, procurement and deployment of repeater hardware? And what if the ILEC is not interested in providing such a service - any PUC/FCC/etc political process via which they could be forced to cooperate? Things get even more complicated in those locations where the CO has a Covad DSLAM in it serving out SDSL/2B1Q, but no other CLEC serving G.shdsl. Even if the ILEC were to provide a G.shdsl transport service with repeaters, it wouldn't help with SDSL/2B1Q. My idea involves building a gadget in the form factor of a standard mid-span repeater that would function as a converter from SDSL/2B1Q to G.shdsl: if the loop calls for one mid-span repeater, stick this gadget in as if it were that repeater; if the loop calls for 2 or more repeaters, use my gadget as the first "repeater" and then standard G.shdsl repeaters after it. But of course this idea is totally dependent on the ability of a third party to stick these devices in the middle of long rural loops, perhaps in the place of loading coils which are likely present on such loops. Any ideas? MS

12 14

Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.rric.net/ I'm very familiar with those folks of course, they've been an inspiration to me for a long time. However, my needs are different. RRIC's model basically involves a specific community with a well-defined boundary: bring the bandwidth into the community via a bulk feed, then sublet inside the community. But I don't have a specific community in mind - I'm trying to develop a more generic solution. (The case of my friend who is at 31 kft from a Covad-enabled CO is only an example and nothing more.) Again, consider a town with a Covad-enabled CO plus an outlying countryside. The people in the town proper already have Covad xDSL available to them, and if we could stick my SDSL/2B1Q repeater in the middle of some longer loops, it would enable the people in the countryside to get *exactly the same* Covad (or ISP-X-via-Covad) services as those in the town proper. My repeater approach would also allow me to stay out of ISP or ISP-like business which I really don't want to get into - I would rather just make hardware and let someone else operate it. A repeater is totally unlike a router, it is not IP-aware, it just makes the loop seem shorter, allowing farther-outlying users to connect to *existing* ISPs with an already established business structure. Anyway, I just saw a post on NANOG about an area deprived of "high-speed Internet" services and thought I would post my idea in the hope that someone would have some ideas that would actually be *helpful* to what I'm trying to do. If not - oh well, I'll just put the idea back on the dusty shelf in the back of my mind until I'm ready to try presenting it to the folks who own the CO-colocated DSLAMs it would have to work with - gotta finish a few other things before I open that can of worms in the earnest. MS

6 5

1.0.0.0/8 route from MERIT ?
by Alex H. Ryu 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Today I jumped into one of our routers, and I found that 1.0.0.0/8 is announced from AS237, which is MERIT. Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 1.0.0.0/8 4.59.200.5 0 60 0 (65001 65105) 3356 7018 237 i Is this supposed to be? I thought 1.0.0.0/8 is allocated to APNIC. Alex

10 11

hotmail help
by Matt Kelly 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Anyone from hotmail on the list that can contact me please? We're having a widespread issue. Thanks. -- Matt

2 1

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6
by John Musbach 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Unsubscribe. On 3/1/10, nanog-request(a)nanog.org <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Antonio Querubin) > 2. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Larry Sheldon) > 3. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Kevin Oberman) > 4. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Kevin Oberman) > 5. RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > (Warren Bailey) > 6. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Joel Jaeggli) > 7. RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > (Akyol, Bora A) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:12:58 -1000 (HST) > From: "Antonio Querubin" <tony(a)lava.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: <lir(a)uralttk.ru> > Cc: lir(a)uralttk.ru, nanog(a)nanog.org, members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1003010910140.143(a)cust11794.lava.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > >>> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > >> Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET >> when it existed, you are >> dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run >> network. >> >> Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of >> the money to keep >> the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or >> operational aspects of the >> network. > > I think DISA and DoD would argue about that claim with regard to NIPRNet > and SIPRNet :) > > Antonio Querubin > 808-545-5282 x3003 > e-mail/xmpp: tony(a)lava.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:09:51 -0600 > From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon(a)cox.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4B8C1F0F.6080102(a)cox.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 3/1/2010 12:53 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600 >> Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >>> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >>>>> network... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet >>>> and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. >>>> >>>> ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... >>> >>> And that is only the TLD label. >>> >>> Is there still a DARPANET, ARPANET's successor? >>> >>> >> Depends on what you mean. > > I meant "is there still a DARPAnet" separate and apart from its progeny, > fragments, and follow-ons. > -- > "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to > take everything you have." > > Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. > > Requiescas in pace o email > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio > Eppure si rinfresca > > ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs > http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:30:24 -0800 > From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman(a)es.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: Adam Waite <awaite(a)tuenti.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org, lir(a)uralttk.ru, members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291CC13(a)ptavv.es.net> > >> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 >> From: Adam Waite <awaite(a)tuenti.com> >> >> >> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> > network... >> > >> > >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly > define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions > nor get involved with the technical end of the network. > > ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under > contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is > really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many > others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that > DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support > DOE funded research. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: oberman(a)es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:30:24 -0800 > From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman(a)es.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: <lir(a)uralttk.ru> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org, lir(a)uralttk.ru, members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291CC13(a)ptavv.es.net> > >> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 >> From: Adam Waite <awaite(a)tuenti.com> >> >> >> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> > network... >> > >> > >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly > define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions > nor get involved with the technical end of the network. > > ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under > contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is > really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many > others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that > DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support > DOE funded research. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: oberman(a)es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:19:38 -0900 > From: Warren Bailey <wbailey(a)gci.com> > Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > To: Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com>, NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <5B3743FC2D0D8B41B27EE4F5EACA79D10D23C143(a)DTN1EX01.gci.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > How do you think we feel in Alaska. Until mid last year, most cellular > BTS were backhauled via DS1. Only Within the last 12 months have we > (insert obligatory "I work for a GSM and CDMA cellular provider serving > most of Alaska") even migrated from Local copper to fiber or air > interfaces (ds1/ds3 microwave). > > I've always been curious as to why the people who aren't being served > with "broadband" type of services haven't made a larger fuss about this. > The idea of running a copper pair to a home should have died long ago, > IMHO. As an RF Engineer, I see everyone turning to fiber and dry loops > when it's just not necessary or even cost effective. Put up the > *LICENSED* loop and call it a day.. Or a 5.8 RAD shot when you feel like > rolling the deice. Either way, cellular isn't the drop dead answer to > solving a sparsely covered area. > > About 95% of my state is not covered by cellular, but we've had no > problems deploying the largest cellular (rural obviously) provider in > the United States - just look up. It's not as expensive as you would > think. > > > //warren > > Warren Bailey > GCI Communication Corp. > RF Network Engineering > 907.868.5911 office > 907.903.5410 mobile > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Senie [mailto:dts@senie.com] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:21 PM > To: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > > Hopefully someone will bother to cover the rural areas with cell service > eventually. > > Much of western Massachusetts (by which I mean the Berkshires, more than > I mean the Pioneer Valley) is not covered by cell service. Where there > is cell service, most cell sites have only minimal data speeds. Vermont > is far worse, as is much of Maine. If there were 3G cellular, it'd be a > big step up. But I expect the inner cities will all be running LTE for > years before more rural areas even get voice service. > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Haney, Wilson wrote: > >> As we all know it's expensive building out any landline network. Rural > areas just get over looked. >> >> Check out this tech coming out of Motorola and to a Verizon/ATT tower > near you soon. >> >> 100 Mbps possible off cellular signals. Looks like they will throttle > it to 20 Mbps and less though. >> >> http://business.motorola.com/experiencelte/lte-depth.html >> >> http://news.techworld.com/networking/3203498/motorola-predicts-20mbps- >> download-speed-with-future-lte-networks/ >> >> WPH >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Crooks, Sam [mailto:Sam.Crooks@experian.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:51 PM >> To: Michael Sokolov; nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) >> >> I had good luck getting my dad some form of broadband access in rural >> Oregon using a 3g router (Cradlepoint), a Wilson Electronics signal >> amp (model 811211), and an outdoor mount high gain antenna. It's not >> great, but considering the alternatives (33.6k dialup for $60/mo or >> satellite broadband for $150-$200/mo) it wasn't a bad deal for my dad >> when you consider that the dialup ISP + dedicated POTS line cost about > >> as much as the 5GB 3G data plan does. >> >> Speed is somewhere between dialup and Uverse or FIOS. I get the >> sense that it is somewhere in the range of 256 - 512 kbps with high >> latency (Dad's not one for much in the way of network performance > testing). >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG] >>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:35 PM >>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>> Subject: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) >>> >>> Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no >> connectivity >>> at = >>>> all. Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines. >>> >>> Hmm. Although I've never been to Western MA and hence have no idea >>> what the telecom situation is like over there, I'm certainly aware of > >>> quite a few places in "first world USA" where DSL is still a fantasy, > >>> let >> alone >>> fiber. >>> >>> As a local example, I have a friend in a rural area of Southern >>> California who can't get any kind of "high-speed Internet". I've run >> a >>> prequal on her address and it tells me she is 31 kft from the CO. >>> The CO in question has a Covad DSLAM in it, but at 31 kft those rural > >>> residents' options are limited to either IDSL at 144 kbps (not much >>> point in that) or a T1 starting at ~$700/month. The latter figure is > >>> typically well out of range for the kind of people who live in such >>> places. >>> >>> That got me thinking: ISDN/IDSL and T1 can be extended infinitely far > >>> into the boondocks because those signal formats support repeaters. >>> What >>> I'm wondering is how can we do the same thing with SDSL - and I mean >>> politically rather than technically. The technical part is easy: >>> some COs already have CLECs in them that serve G.shdsl (I've been >>> told that NEN does that) and for G.shdsl repeaters are part of the >>> standard (searching around shows a few vendors making them); in the >>> case of SDSL/2B1Q (Covad and DSL.net) there is no official support >>> for repeaters and hence no major vendors making such, but I can build > >>> such a >> repeater >>> unofficially. >>> >>> The difficulty is with the political part, and that's where I'm >> seeking >>> the wisdom of this list. How would one go about sticking a mid-span >>> repeater into an ILEC-owned 31 kft rural loop? From what I >>> understand (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!), when a CLEC >>> orders a loop from an ILEC, if it's for a T1 or IDSL, the CLEC >>> actually orders a T1 or ISDN BRI transport from the ILEC rather than >>> a dry pair, and any mid-span repeaters or HDSLx converters or the >>> like become the responsibility of the ILEC rather than the CLEC, >>> right? >>> >>> So how could one extend this model to provide, say, repeatered >>> G.shdsl service to far-outlying rural subscribers? Is there some >>> political process (PUC/FCC/etc) by which an ILEC could be forced to >>> allow a >> third >>> party to stick a repeater in the middle of their loop? Or would it >>> have to work by way of the ILEC providing a G.shdsl transport service > >>> to CLECs, with the ILEC being responsible for the selection, >>> procurement and deployment of repeater hardware? And what if the >>> ILEC is not interested in providing such a service - any PUC/FCC/etc >>> political process via which they could be forced to cooperate? >>> >>> Things get even more complicated in those locations where the CO has >>> a Covad DSLAM in it serving out SDSL/2B1Q, but no other CLEC serving >>> G.shdsl. Even if the ILEC were to provide a G.shdsl transport >>> service with repeaters, it wouldn't help with SDSL/2B1Q. My idea >>> involves building a gadget in the form factor of a standard mid-span >>> repeater that would function as a converter from SDSL/2B1Q to >>> G.shdsl: if the loop calls for one mid-span repeater, stick this >>> gadget in as if it were that repeater; if the loop calls for 2 or >>> more repeaters, use my gadget as the first "repeater" and then >>> standard G.shdsl repeaters after it. But of course this idea is >>> totally dependent on the ability of a third party to stick these >>> devices in the middle of long rural loops, perhaps in the place of >>> loading coils which are likely present on such loops. >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> MS >> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:18:08 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon(a)cox.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4B8BF6D0.9000900(a)bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > On 03/01/2010 09:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote: >>> >>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >>>> network... >>>> >>>> >>> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. >>> >>> ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... >> >> And that is only the TLD label. >> >> Is there still a DARPANET, ARPANET's successor? > > On the us military side the successor to Arpanet was Milnet, NIPRnet, > DDN etc. > > In some respects the modern analog is DREN ESNET and so on. > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:34:01 -0800 > From: "Akyol, Bora A" <bora(a)pnl.gov> > Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > To: 'Michael Sokolov' <msokolov(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <BECAED262016464A9C59788DA6AC9690048525CC25(a)EMAIL05.pnl.gov> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Michael > > I think for the people in the situation you are describing, the best bet > would be > one of the wireless technologies. Someone on the thread mentioned LTE (which > should > be coming out in a couple years time), and to that we can add WiMAX and > even the 3G/3.5G HSPDA type wireless. The prices will not be USD19.99 but > for > less than USD70/month it is quite possible to get reasonable high speed > Internet > access. Will it be as fast as GigE to the house? No. But it will certainly > support > most web apps. The only challenge is that some of these wireless > technologies still have > much higher latency when compared to the wired DSL/cable modem links. > > Regards > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:05 PM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > > Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.rric.net/ > > I'm very familiar with those folks of course, they've been an inspiration > to me for a long time. > > However, my needs are different. RRIC's model basically involves a > specific community with a well-defined boundary: bring the bandwidth > into the community via a bulk feed, then sublet inside the community. > > But I don't have a specific community in mind - I'm trying to develop a > more generic solution. (The case of my friend who is at 31 kft from a > Covad-enabled CO is only an example and nothing more.) Again, consider > a town with a Covad-enabled CO plus an outlying countryside. The people > in the town proper already have Covad xDSL available to them, and if we > could stick my SDSL/2B1Q repeater in the middle of some longer loops, it > would enable the people in the countryside to get *exactly the same* > Covad (or ISP-X-via-Covad) services as those in the town proper. > > My repeater approach would also allow me to stay out of ISP or ISP-like > business which I really don't want to get into - I would rather just > make hardware and let someone else operate it. A repeater is totally > unlike a router, it is not IP-aware, it just makes the loop seem shorter, > allowing farther-outlying users to connect to *existing* ISPs with an > already established business structure. > > Anyway, I just saw a post on NANOG about an area deprived of "high-speed > Internet" services and thought I would post my idea in the hope that > someone would have some ideas that would actually be *helpful* to what > I'm trying to do. If not - oh well, I'll just put the idea back on the > dusty shelf in the back of my mind until I'm ready to try presenting it > to the folks who own the CO-colocated DSLAMs it would have to work with > - gotta finish a few other things before I open that can of worms in the > earnest. > > MS > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 > ************************************ > -- Best Regards, John Musbach

1 0

Fwd: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update
by Michael Greb 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

Received this message today. They haven't updated the <http://www.comcast6.net/> site yet. Mike Begin forwarded message: > An Important Message From Comcast > > Dear Comcast Customer, > > Thank you for volunteering to participate in Comcast's IPv6 trials! I wanted to provide you with a quick update on what our next steps are and when you can expect to hear from us again. > > As you know, we have four trials described at http://www.comcast6.net. We're in detailed planning on the first three: 6RD, plus native dual-stack for residential and for commercial customers. We expect each of these to start sometime within the next 90 days or so. > > 6RD Trial: > We anticipate having customers from around our network, not limited to any specific areas, participate. We will start the trial on a very small scale and then progressively increase the number of participants. We plan to ship a new home gateway device to each trial participant. > > Residential Native Dual-Stack Trial: > This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We are in the midst of determining precisely what those areas will be, based on where we have volunteers and where the infrastructure will be ready. If trial participants do not have an IPv6-capable home gateway and cable modem, one will be provided. > > Commercial Native Dual-Stack Trial: > This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We have tentatively identified these trial areas and will soon be in touch with potential trial users. > > Within approximately the next 30 days we will begin to contact some of our volunteers regarding each of these trials, so expect to hear from us soon. > > Thanks again for your interest! > > Regards > Jason Livingood > Internet Systems Engineering > Comcast

6 5

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update
by Brzozowski, John 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

Did you check out IPv6 Essentials, 2nd edition by Siliva Hagen? ---------------- John 609-377-6594 ---------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Fleming <bdfleming(a)kanren.net> To: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Mon Mar 01 09:27:48 2010 Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update I found "Migrating to IPv6: A practical guide to implementing IPv6 in mobile and fixed networks" by Marc Blanchet very well written and "worth the price of admission". ISBN: 978-0471-49892-6 -- Brad Fleming On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > Can anyone recommend a decent book on IPV6? Most of what I find on > the net don't explain things very well. > > thanks, > Curtis > > On 2/28/2010 2:08 PM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: >> Mike, >> >> Are you looking for something specific on www.comcast6.net? We >> will likely >> be making some content updates in the not too distant future and >> over time >> as the trials progress and evolve. If there is something specific >> you would >> like to see send me your suggestions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> On 2/26/10 1:15 PM, "Michael Greb"<michael(a)thegrebs.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Received this message today. They haven't updated the >>> <http://www.comcast6.net/> site yet. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>>> An Important Message From Comcast >>>> >>>> Dear Comcast Customer, >>>> >>>> Thank you for volunteering to participate in Comcast's IPv6 >>>> trials! I wanted >>>> to provide you with a quick update on what our next steps are and >>>> when you >>>> can expect to hear from us again. >>>> >>>> As you know, we have four trials described at http://www.comcast6.net >>>> . We're >>>> in detailed planning on the first three: 6RD, plus native dual- >>>> stack for >>>> residential and for commercial customers. We expect each of these >>>> to start >>>> sometime within the next 90 days or so. >>>> >>>> 6RD Trial: >>>> We anticipate having customers from around our network, not >>>> limited to any >>>> specific areas, participate. We will start the trial on a very >>>> small scale >>>> and then progressively increase the number of participants. We >>>> plan to ship a >>>> new home gateway device to each trial participant. >>>> >>>> Residential Native Dual-Stack Trial: >>>> This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We are >>>> in the midst >>>> of determining precisely what those areas will be, based on where >>>> we have >>>> volunteers and where the infrastructure will be ready. If trial >>>> participants >>>> do not have an IPv6-capable home gateway and cable modem, one >>>> will be >>>> provided. >>>> >>>> Commercial Native Dual-Stack Trial: >>>> This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We have >>>> tentatively >>>> identified these trial areas and will soon be in touch with >>>> potential trial >>>> users. >>>> >>>> Within approximately the next 30 days we will begin to contact >>>> some of our >>>> volunteers regarding each of these trials, so expect to hear from >>>> us soon. >>>> >>>> Thanks again for your interest! >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Jason Livingood >>>> Internet Systems Engineering >>>> Comcast >>>> >>> >>> >> ========================================= >> John Jason Brzozowski >> Comcast Cable >> e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com >> o) 609-377-6594 >> m) 484-962-0060 >> w) http://www.comcast6.net >> ========================================= >> >> >> > > >

2 1

6to4 on Sprint Wireless Broadband
by Izaac 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

A few months ago, is appears that Sprint started dropping 6to4 encapsulated packets. Egress is fine. Ingress silently drops. Anyone see anything similar? Or am I the only guy crazy enough to be doing this sort of thing in the first place? -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

2 1

RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Arjan van der Oest 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

Skeeve wrote: > Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than > competition though. Yes sir, in theory/conceptually. > The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to > do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as they aren't > giving off much of a 'team player' vibe... more a fanatical religious > vibe.. They will just define their own policies - which in the end may have an > actual realised negative impact on the routing system - the details of which are > for a different discussion. Again: as long as they don't interfere with IANA and RIR's and assuming there is no aluminum hat conspiracy that tries to achieve world-domination-via-ipv6 I wish them all the best. If they wish to implement some ridiculous policies concerning the assignment of IPv6 space via the ITU, let them. The result will be that all the telco's and ISP's will continue to use the current RIR's and ITU will prove their existence is useless. > Given that the ITU, like the RIR, are a member driven system.... that to me > suggests that there are specific members who are pushing for this... I've heard > 'Syria' being tossed around as an agitator in this... but that there are other > supporters who are not happy with the US Government dominance/control of the > process. Which I can imagine, without the urge to start a political discussion here :) > But the RIR system has been running for a long time... and 'not badly' for the > most part.... so why do we really need to change anything? Why are people so scared of change? It's not a bad thing... > Really.. if there were MASSIVE problems with the RIR system, the members would > have kicked some ass a long time ago. Imho there is no massive problem with the RIR system, although there is always room for improvement. Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see what is wise. With all respect to Sven Kamphuis, that is exactly the reaction I would not see as the best towards the UN and ITU. Just my 2 cents -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest(a)worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail.

1 0