- Test - lists.nanog.org

Looking for alternate providers
by james jones 14 Jan '21

14 Jan '21

Greetings, Looking for upstream alternatives in Ayer, MA (01432). Need a gigabit link. Can be async but needs to be at least 35Mb up. Comcast need not apply. -James

1 0

ATT Outage in South Florida?
by Robert Webb 13 Jan '21

13 Jan '21

Getting complaints from internet and wireless users of no data or voice access. Anyone down that way having the same experience?

3 3

Re: DMVPN via Internet or Private APN
by Joel M Snyder 13 Jan '21

13 Jan '21

> I offer a question to help me settle an internal debate. As a network > engineer for a large enterprise, do you choose ISP flexibility or ISP > security when you build an OOB network? Flexibility. (will not joke about immense problem of including the words "ISP" and "security" in same sentence, unless accompanied by the phrase "complete and total absence of" as well) My particular area of concentration the last decade or so has been large multi-national WANs. I've been fortunate enough to see entire waves of deployment and redeployment, which has added a thick layer of scarring. One of the lessons that I take away from these deployments is that anything which is not pure "Internet" IP must be avoided, because if it doesn't bite you in the *ss on day 1, it will on day 1,000 or 10,000. Providers love to deliver a customized service, and in small deployments (such as connecting offices within a metropolitan area) I can see the value. But whether the provider is creating lock-in (sinister conspiracy theory) or just wants to give you a better service (optimistic world view theory), it *always* ends up being a problem sooner or later. I can pull a dozen anecdotes out where this happened and cost between $ and $$$$ to deal with, but my long-term experience is that the more vanilla the pipe, the better off you will be in the long run especially as the clock ticks past years and years. There are certainly issues with having multiple contracts, and the overhead of handling hundreds of semi-overlapping and slightly different bills and contact points is not to be dismissed lightly; it is a BIG deal especially for larger organizations with high internal costs for administrative overhead. Providers also claim better pricing on big contracts, but rarely is this true, because of the sharp and continuous drop in costs for Internet worldwide. Go with vanilla. It's easier to pour syrup and nuts on top than it is to dig out those disgusting frozen marshmallow chunks from the rocky road someone committed to. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms

1 0

Loss from USA to Singapore
by nanoguser99 13 Jan '21

13 Jan '21

Reporting packet loss getting from US to Singapore. Our prefix is being announced by AS 7473. The problem appears to be with transport to the US through STIX. Anyone else experiencing these issues? Are there other transit providers that do not use STIX? Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

1 0

DMVPN via Internet or Private APN
by Sean Kelly 12 Jan '21

12 Jan '21

Hello Nanog's I offer a question to help me settle an internal debate. As a network engineer for a large enterprise, do you choose ISP flexibility or ISP security when you build an OOB network? I was tasked to create an OOB network for my company. Realistically it would only be deployed to 25% of the companies sites as they are considered important enough to justify the cost. The design is simple enough. Hub and spoke using cellular routers. DMVPN will carry data from the spoke to the hub. The real debate arrives when it's time to choose a carrier to host the router. I choose to go with a major cell carrier using a "private" APN. It allows me to connect my cell routers to a private layer 2 network and my private IP addresses will be used to provide layer 3 connectivity. I know that there will be outliers that can't use this carrier or cellular at all. These outliers, in my opinion, shouldn't have a majority stake in the overall design. The APN overall cost is low and so is the data plan for the hosted routers. The private APN also eliminates the router as an internet attack vector. I don't believe routers are appropriate security appliances to defend and monitor against network threats. Some of my colleagues believe that the flexibility of public cellular access outweighs the security risks. The cellular internet will provide us with a solution for more of the outliers than a private APN. I don't agree with this philosophy even though it's not "technically" wrong. I am interested in a broader range of opinion and technical reasoning. Nanog member KELLYSP

5 4

RE: Parler
by Keith Medcalf 12 Jan '21

12 Jan '21

That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; and the charge laid against the shouter was "reckless disregard for human life resulting in culpable homocide" and the elements of that offence being proved, was dismissed on the basis that the "speech" was protected by the first amendment? -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. >-----Original Message----- >From: Rod Beck <rod.beck(a)unitedcablecompany.com> >Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2021 05:13 >To: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf(a)dessus.com> >Subject: Re: Parler > >Hi, > > >Your distinction sounds specious. The Courts have consistently that the >1st amendment protects free speech from government retaliation in many >instances. It is not just prior restraint. > > >Best, > > >Roderick. > > >________________________________ > >From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com(a)nanog.org> on >behalf of Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf(a)dessus.com> >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:11 AM >To: nanog(a)nanog.org <nanog(a)nanog.org> >Subject: RE: Parler > >>The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting >>freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell >>their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.) > >You are correct and incorrect. The First Amendment prohibits the >Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint". It does >nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its >agents. > >You are also incorrect. Freedom of Speech is Absolute. There is no >prior restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" >whatever that means. That does not mean that speech does not have >"consequences". The first amendment only protects against prior >restraint, it does not protect against the suffering of consequences. >And of course "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the >speech. > >Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell that >means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken >prior to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an >assumption of fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical >question) and the courts do not rule on hypotheticals. If you do not >understand the difference then perhaps you should be sentenced to death >since you have a hand, and having a hand it could hold a gun, and since >it could hold a gun, you could also murder someone. So therefore you >should be put to death now as "prior restraint" to prevent you from >committing murder. > >I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be >self-evident. > >-- >Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved >with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. > > >

10 10

Register now for our DNS Fundamentals Webinar 👉 Jan 22, via NANOG U
by NANOG News 12 Jan '21

12 Jan '21

NANOG U Webinars provide students across North America a way to virtually connect and engage with industry innovators, while learning the latest Internet technologies + best practices, and accessing career-building tools + resources. Our next Webinar will take place on Friday, January 22! *DNS Fundamentals * *Date + Time: * Jan 22, 11am - 1pm PST / 2pm - 4pm EST *Speaker:* Eddy Winstead, Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) *Agenda:* DNS is a distributed database which maps domain names to IP addresses. Join us for an overview of how DNS works, and how to leverage the system to support your Internet related communications. *Registration: * NANOG U Webinars are free to attend, but registration is required to participate. All sessions are conducted at nanog.org. To register for the webinar, you'll first need to sign up for a NANOG account. It's free, simple, and takes less than a minute. Register Now <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/webinar-dns-fundamentals/> Watch Past Webinars <https://nanog.org/news-stories/nanog-tv/nanog-u/>

1 0

Just a heads up, apparently Ubiquiti had a breach.
by eric-list＠truenet.com 11 Jan '21

11 Jan '21

Official statement: https://mailchi.mp/ubnt/account-notification?e=30527b2904 Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300

2 1

Amazon peering
by JASON BOTHE 11 Jan '21

11 Jan '21

Hi all Just curious if anyone has recently requested Amazon peering and if they’ve gotten a timely response. I know historically it was months and months but I thought I had read where they had turned over a new leaf and were responding promptly. I have a pending request but it was done over the holidays so hoping it’s just in a small backlog :-) Thanks J~

2 2

Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
by William Herrin 11 Jan '21

11 Jan '21

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Danny O'Brien <danny(a)spesh.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:54 PM William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> wrote: >> there have been some real post-CDA head scratchers where >> a court decided that an online service exercised sufficient control of >> the content to have made itself a publisher. > > You really need to give citations here, because IMHO not only is this *exactly* the scenario that Section 230 was intended to provide legal clarity regarding (and so protect service providers from this kind of moderation double-bind), but as I understand it pretty much all the subsequent caselaw has *strengthened* the ability for providers to moderate and manage content, including user-generated content, without triggering liability. Well, for example, Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, No. 18-1041 (3rd Cir. July 3, 2019) which found that Amazon was a seller of goods and not merely hosting information about a third party's sale, and thus subject to product liability law for the product that was sold. But in the Erie Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over a defective third-party product. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

3 3