- Test - lists.nanog.org

SMS gateways
by David Hubbard 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom’s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it’s only 2G so likely won’t be viable much longer. The other question, given the fact that they’re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ‘machine’ plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ‘machine’ plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. Thanks, David

11 18

Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
by Valdis Kletnieks 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimi… Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time. "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie /me makes popcorn....

19 34

IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior
by Graham Johnston 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Hi nanog, We are little behind in our IPv6 rollout are pushing to make big strides by the end of Q2. We have all of our core network and primary infrastructure dual-stack enabled at this point and our next step will be to move to dual-stack on our CMTSs. For those retail operators that have enabled dual-stack can you comment on behavior that you observed from customer CPE equipment after flipping the switch? Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? For those that are responding I am primarily concerned about customer routers. I have followed the many discussions about Android phones that don't perform DHCPv6, and I am really concerned about these kind of issues as these devices basically won't be seen at the edge of the customer's network. If you have something else that you think is noteworthy, I'm all ears. Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong(a)westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com> P think green; don't print this email.

4 4

Nat
by Ahmed Munaf 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Dear All, We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand like A10 or Citrix. Please any advice regarding the three brands and what are the advantages and disadvantages for each one? Regards,

38 74

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
by Sander Steffann 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

> Op 11 jan. 2016, om 15:05 heeft Vint Cerf <vint(a)google.com> het volgende geschreven: > > sounds like the Federal Reserve testing the waters with hints of increasing discount rate... :)

1 0

Re: GPON vs. GEPON
by Baldur Norddahl 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

We do not sell TV but that means our customers are cable cutters that do a ton of Netflix, HBO Nordic, ViaSat, SBS, DR TV etc streaming. Our traffic level per customer is about the double of what others report. VoIP is not very popular, but people do that too. In either case traffic levels from VoIP is so low that it is below the noise floor. When you can get 940 Mbit/s transfer rates with 1 ms latency and no jitter, a single 64 Kbit/s voice stream is not going to be a problem. We point customers to third party SIP providers and everyone are happy with that. Do the math: a Netflix HD stream is about 5 Mbit/s. How many such stream can you have with 2,4 Gbit/s capacity on a GPON OLT? Yes a lot. You might say but every home has at least 5 TVs now, so with 64 users you need to be able to do 5 times 64 times 5 Mbit/s (*). But it simply does not work that way. We are very far from a situation where it works that way. Instead we monitor the traffic levels, and if sometime in the future the peak traffic becomes a problem, we are ready to either lower the split ratio or invest in the next technology (probably some kind of x*10 Gbit/s PON). Until then we take the cost savings of using a split ratio that works in the real world. (*) nobody has a backbone that can cope with that kind of traffic either. Regards, Baldur On 9 January 2016 at 05:41, Josh Reynolds <josh(a)kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > And you are doing 6+ stream IPTV and VoIP as well? > On Jan 8, 2016 9:58 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds <josh(a)kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >> >>> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards >>> are >>> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG >>> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. >>> >> >> That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT and >> a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just works. >> The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more users >> on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64 >> users per OLT). >> >> Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s internet >> is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the expected >> 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all time >> of day, also at peak usage. >> >> Regards, >> >> Baldur >> >> >> >> >> >

3 3

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
by Sander Steffann 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Hi Vint, > Op 11 jan. 2016, om 12:47 heeft Vint Cerf <vint(a)google.com> het volgende geschreven: > > since google is a major implementor of IPv6, some people might claim this is an attempt to artificially inflate scores for Google sites. Sigh. Sigh indeed. On the other hand: IPv6 is getting enough traction that it can't be considered a "Google thing". A thought: Maybe Google could announce that because of the increasing scarcity of IPv4 addresses and the rise of global IPv6 deployment Google is considering to start taking IPv6 reachability into account later this year. That would give the possibility for Google to watch how people respond before actually changing anything, it would take away some arguments of those that blame Google for artificially inflating scores (they have been warned long in advance) and it would make SEO companies more aware of IPv6 so they can start pushing the ISPs and hosters to support IPv6. Google already provides webmaster tools. Maybe showing a warning for websites that aren't reachable over IPv6 (or even worse: that have completely different content on IPv6) would be nice. Even if IPv6 reachability doesn't affect the page rank (yet) the number of users with IPv6+IPv4-CGN is growing so enabling IPv6 will have a positive impact on a growing number of eyeballs (see Facebook's experience with IPv6 performance). Showing warning messages on Google Webmaster Tools when the site is not reachable over IPv6 (and error messages when the IPv4 content is very different from the IPv6 content) would be nice. Even if Google gets so much pushback that they decide not to go forward with this at this point in time it might already cause some good awareness for IPv6. Even though IPv6 is growing all over the world I still think Google doing something like this would help a lot. Cheers, Sander

1 0

Anonymous Threats
by Eric Rogers 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. He/she is taunting them, local and federal. I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the source. Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list if you do respond... Thanks in advance. Eric Rogers www.pdsconnect.me (317) 831-3000 x200

8 9

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
by Alex Buie 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Ugh, I had to deal with this almost daily at $large_metered_us_carrier. We have WiFi hotspots and USB modems and inevitably the customers who usually use <2GB and have plans based on that usage got slapped with huge Windows 10 overages. Explaining that no, your "geebee" meter isn't broken, Microsoft just shafted you got so tiring, especially when they don't have the faintest clue what Windows Update or data or anything of the sort mean, just barely enough to sign into their AOL account and check the weather. The bad part is how aggressively Microsoft is downloading it to your HD even if you don't accept it. (See Windows.BT folder, &c) I am "eagerly" awaiting the next wave of update renaming/repushing. > On Jan 9, 2016 2:57 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said: >> > Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by >> > you or not. >> >> You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they >> got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 >> machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them?

8 7

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. [Comcast meter Q]
by Livingood, Jason 09 Jan '16

09 Jan '16

On 1/9/16, 12:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Robert Webb" <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org on behalf of rwebb(a)ropeguru.com> wrote: >Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, >but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I >do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe >exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards >usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even >more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable >nature. Since my day job is at Comcast and part of that job is ensuring that the usage meter is technically accurate I figured I would chime in. A few bits of information that may be helpful follow below. **I am happy to answer any questions you or others have.** And I have also copied our independent auditor should there be questions for his firm. 1 - Comcast does byte counting via the IPDR standard (IP Detail Records). I would think any other DOCSIS-based network that performs byte counting would also use IPDR (and all the ones of which I am aware do so). You can find some more information about the IPDR specification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Detail_Record https://www.incognito.com/tips-and-tutorials/faq-bandwidth-monitoring-with- ipdr/ http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1603814~d44a19780841cdc79abf840b6066d 52d/ipdr-usage-counters.pdf http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/specdocs/CM-SP-OSSIv3.0-I14-110 210.pdf 2 - Comcast first made mention of the use of IPDR in a 2008 FCC filing, as part of a deployment of a protocol-agnostic congestion management system. See these documents: http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057 3 - Comcast engaged a 3rd party auditor called NetForecast (http://www.netforecast.com/) to regularly, independently audit the accuracy of our usage meter. We usually announce those audits on our Network Management page (ex: http://networkmanagement.xfinity.com/index.php/8-network-management-news/55 -2015-comcast-usage-meter-accuracy-report) and NetForecast publishes these reports on their website. See the following documents: - First accuracy report, 2009: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage _Meter_Accuracy_Original.pdf - Second accuracy report, 2010: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage _Meter_Accuracy.pdf - Third accuracy report, 2014: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NFR5116_Comcast_Meter _Accuracy_Report.pdf - Fourth accuracy report, 2015: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5120_Fourth_Comcas t_Meter_Accuracy_Validation_Report.pdf - ISP best practice report: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5119_General_ISP_D ata_Usage_Meter_Specification.pdf 4 - In terms of what is counted, all Internet traffic is counted (what is now known as Title-II traffic). Title-VI video traffic and Xfinity Voice traffic, which may use the IP protocol but are not Internet services, are not counted. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, Jason

1 0