August 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

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

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