Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-04 Thread SML

On 4 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Michael Thomas wrote:


On 10/04/2014 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
So I work in a small office in a building that has many "enterprise" 
wifi's I can see
whether I like it or not. What if one of them decided that our wifi 
was "rogue" and

started trying to stamp it out?


It happens daily. We have 22 offices around the world, each in downtown 
towers. We use Cisco WLCs, and those controllers see constant deauth 
frames coming from people above us, below us, and from the four sides 
around us. It is a real battle. The only thing to do is use lots of APs 
in the office so as to keep the power levels down.


In a couple of cases our office managers personally visited the offices 
of people above, below, and across from us and discussed the problem. It 
helped.



Mike, this seems like it might be a universally bad idea...


It isn't a bad idea, as we need to protect our corporate networks. But 
there are unintended consequences, to be sure.




Re: centurylink chi2 and level3 -- network issues

2014-08-27 Thread SML

On 27 Aug 2014, at 10:01, Nick wrote:

Is anyone else having network issue over the past week with 
centurylink and their peer level3?


I spoke with centurylinks noc team. They are not being helpful and 
blame level3. I'm seeing period of high packet loss and poor 
throughput speeds. From what I can tell. Its a problem between qwest 
and level3 border routers.


CL is an upstream of our provider. We complained about this to our 
provider, and our upstream complained to CL. CL's response was that this 
is an oversubscription problem due to a CL customer violating its ToS, 
and CL's lawyers were involved.


That was two or three months ago.

...sigh...



Re: [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole?

2008-05-07 Thread SML
On 7-May-2008, at 17:07:06, Deepak Jain wrote:

> Many non-SP IT folks think they understand TCP, grudgingly accept  
> UDP for DNS from external sources and think everything else is  
> bollocks. Many *might* have a fit if they saw Microsoft accepting  
> ICMPs because that seems inconsistent with their knowledge of turn- 
> the-knob network security. To their view, their Linksys/Netgear/ 
> whathaveyou COTS firewalls block everything too.
>
> I don't think I'm exaggerating here.


No, you are not. I have seen the same from "firewall engineers" at  
large companies, people who, supposedly, have done "network security"  
for years. Even after showing them numerous Web sites detailing  
current best practices, especially Rob Thomas's fine site, these folks  
would not change their practices.

Some days it is hard to not give in to the "I give up" feelings.


___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog