October 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

PLDT on the list?
by Jon Lewis 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

This may be a long shot, but if there's anyone on-list from PLDT who can help out with PLDT I-Gate customer prefix filtering updates, I'd appreciate some help with an issue that's been dragging on for weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

1 0

Megapath contact
by Jeremy Parr 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

Could someone from Megapath contact me offlist? I'm fighting with some very strange routing for a customer.

1 0

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
by Larry Sheldon 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said: >> The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure. > > However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation > that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on > that. > Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract? -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

3 2

Survey about RPKI/DNSSEC
by Matthias Waehlisch 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

Hi NANOG, we, a group of researchers, try to better understand the deployment of RPKI and DNSSEC. It's not always easy to find technical reasons for what we observe. To get more insights why you deploy or don't deploy RPKI or DNSSEC, we would like to ask you to participate in the following brief survey: http://eSurv.org?u=rpkidnssec We really appreciate your time. It should not take more than 5 minutes to complete the survey. The survey is anonymous. The results are only used to improve research on inter-networking. If there is interest, we will post the results to the list. Fell free to contact me offlist in case of further questions or comments. Many thanks! matthias (on behalf of the team) [This email has also been sent to RIPE and SIDR folks.] -- Matthias Waehlisch . Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST . Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany .. mailto:waehlisch@ieee.org .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl :. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net

1 1

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
by Larry Sheldon 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

On 10/8/2014 00:35, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said: >>> The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty >>> sure. >> >> However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation >> that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on >> that. >> > Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract? > I lived in the area and worked in San Francisco when BART was built, and while I never rode BART regularly, I have no recall of cell service on BART or MUNI being a safety issue or advertised as such. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

1 0

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
by Larry Sheldon 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote: > On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote: >>> >>> The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. >>> >>> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop… >>> >>> >>> >>> and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any >>> interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety" >>> >>> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopte… >>> >> >> I see that as a fundamentally very different mater. >> >> If I understand, they turned off repeaters ("towers") that they owned >> and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment >> that they were under no obligation whatever to provide. >> >> A reaction to "bright" marketing ideas that had not been thought-through. >> > > BART's equipment was licensed by the FCC with a main reason being 911 > access. OK--not a Marketing idea, maybe. But still, all the options are in BART's hands--they have emergency phones and people everywhere. The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

2 1

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
by Larry Sheldon 07 Oct '14

07 Oct '14

On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote: > > The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. > > http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop… > > > and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any > interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety" > > http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopte… I see that as a fundamentally very different mater. If I understand, they turned off repeaters ("towers") that they owned and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment that they were under no obligation whatever to provide. A reaction to "bright" marketing ideas that had not been thought-through. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

2 1

Weird Issues within L3
by Khurram Khan 07 Oct '14

07 Oct '14

Hi Group, We have a couple of circuits , internet facing with Level 3 and from our edge in San Diego, seeing some packet loss when trying a ping to 4.2.2.4, sourcing from 63.214.184.3. anyone seeing a similar issue ? Packet sent with a source address of 63.214.184.3 !.!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!...!!!..!!!!!!.!!.!!!!!!.!..!!.!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!.!!.!!!..!!!!!.!!!!.! Success rate is 80 percent (80/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/13/16 ms

5 4

Belkin Router issues this morning?
by Parrish, Luke 07 Oct '14

07 Oct '14

Anyone out there seeing issues with Belkin routers connecting? I have also noticed that Belkins website has 80 percent packet loss and their support number is busy. Luke Parrish | Network Operations Engineer I | Suddenlink Communications | 866.232.5455 ________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. ________________________________

10 9

Re: Weird Issues within L3
by Khurram Khan 07 Oct '14

07 Oct '14

what's interesting is that out of my XO peering, I show no packet loss but out of L3, I do see packet loss. XO out of Denver: Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 4.2.2.4, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 69.171.180.67 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/15/16 ms L3 out of San Diego: Packet sent with a source address of 63.214.184.3 !!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 98 percent (98/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/7/16 ms L3 out of Phoenix: Packet sent with a source address of 4.53.104.66 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 8/16/24 ms traceroute out of the L3 pop in San Diego Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 4.2.2.4 1 4.71.136.185 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 2 4.2.2.4 12 msec 12 msec 16 msec On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Smith, Thomas <Smith.Thomas(a)scrippshealth.org> wrote: > I'm dropping about 10 percent from the Sorrento Valley area. > > - - - - - - - - - > Thom Smith > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Khurram Khan > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:46 PM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Weird Issues within L3 > > Hi Group, > > We have a couple of circuits , internet facing with Level 3 and from our edge in San Diego, seeing some packet loss when trying a ping to 4.2.2.4, sourcing from 63.214.184.3. anyone seeing a similar issue ? > > Packet sent with a source address of 63.214.184.3 !.!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!...!!!..!!!!!!.!!.!!!!!!.!..!!.!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!.!!.!!!..!!!!!.!!!!.! > Success rate is 80 percent (80/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/13/16 ms > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged and confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sending individual or entity by e-mail and permanently delete the original e-mail and attachment(s) from your computer system. Thank you for your cooperation.

1 0