August 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Verizon FiOS - is BGP an option?
by Chris Marlatt 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

On 08/03/2012 11:44 AM, Richard Miller wrote: > Chris, > Been thinking about taking that "route" no pun intended. It just > moves the main link off-site. We've had these T1s for so long the > maintenance and ops have become second nature. Someone should be able to > route over a DSL/Cable/whatever link. Especially if we had a simple > static IP setup. > > the prices are nuts here or T1s. Back in the day I was paying 3000 per > T1..now it's 500/mnth for 1.5 symmetrical. I can get 50/5 or 15/5 from > various providers for around 100/mnth! > > Rich Truth be told you don't even need to pay for a static ip if your termination point supports dynamic clients (i.e. a vpn). It's usually easiest if you have a server as your gateway for the local network too, that'll permit some more granular allowances with the ips, forwarding, etc. OpenVPN is a pretty good daemon for the tunnel. The only thing to keep in mind with the dynamic ips is once in a blue moon (for my area at least) you'll pick up a new ip and have a brief period of packet loss as the vpn re-establishes. Regards, Chris

1 0

Update from the NANOG Communications Committee regarding recent off-topic posts
by Matt Griswold 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '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

15 17

Fwd: Re: DOCSIS 3.0 & PPPoE/L2TP compatibility
by Scott Helms 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

I've actually run into this specific problem and the issue your running into is that at no time was PPPoE part of the DOCSIS specification. It was supported on several CMTSs because the Cisco UBR shares much of its OS with more mainline Cisco routers which support L2TP and a host of other non-DOCSIS related protocols. It was also widely supported on some of the earliest CMTSs which were bridges instead of routers (then you needed a separate box to be the LNS). The real problem isn't a change in DOCSIS version but that they choose a platform that doesn't share a code base with a general purpose router. This could have been happenstance or by design, but I can tell you your chances of getting PPPoE to work at all on that platform (even for the cable operator) are not high because the box will not operate as a bridge and there is no (AFAIK) way to relay the PPP discover packets. The D3 Arris is either a C4 or a C4C: http://www.arrisi.com/products/product.asp?id=3 On 7/30/2012 8:33 AM, 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. > > > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------

3 4

Is Hotmail in the habit of ignoring MX records?
by Lou Katz 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail to his domain's A record machine, despite the fact that he has valid MX records. The A record points to my webserver, which does not normally accept mail for anyone. The mail server MX records are to an entirely different machine. Comments? Do I need more valium? -=[L]=- --

13 26

Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy
by Fredy Kuenzler 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

From my observation Level3 has recently changed their routing policy. It seems that 3356 always prefers customer prefixes of 3549, regardless of the AS path length. Example (seen from 3356): 3549_13030_[Customer1]_[Customer2] is preferred over 2914_[Customer1]_[Customer2] Considering that both 2914 and 3549 are peers of 3356, and 13030 is a customer of 3549, 3356 seems to give higher local-pref on the longer AS-path, likely to increase traffic and revenue of their sister network 3549. Certainly it's common practice to overrule the BGP4 default behaviour, and widely used by smaller networks. Still I'm surprised that it happened obviously rather undetected, at least, to my knowledge, Level3 did implement it silently and hasn't published an official statement or customer announcement, which I think, would have been fair, at least. Considering that Level3 3356 and 3549 are by far the largest networks globally this decision must have a large impact on traffic flows and, of course money flows. Maybe the BGP monitoring experts (aka Renesys et al) can shed some light? -- Fredy Künzler Init7 / AS13030

6 5

Procera Networks contact
by Jason Lixfeld 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

If anyone has a contact at Procera Networks who can answer some technical questions about their product, could you please pass it along? The suggested methods at www. have so far gone unanswered. Thanks in advance.

1 0

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