Re: [AFMUG] Anyone else watching the clock for the leap second?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I got drunk and I missed it, did the world end?
On Jun 30, 2015 10:53 PM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:

> My leap second was completely wasted watching that clock...
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:19 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Asshole
>> On Jun 30, 2015 6:27 PM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I wasn't... but now that I've seen that link, I think I have to.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 http://spendyourleapsecondhere.com/

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

>>>
>>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from
our upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some
magic, I freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request,
with a lot of Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before
they tank me on our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4
acquisitions? or black market? lol

Re: [AFMUG] Bridgewave 60GHz

[Jaime Solorza]

Both Bridgewave
On Jun 30, 2015 7:10 PM, "Chad Dewey"  wrote:

> What is the lower unit shown in the picture?  Bummer on the bolts issue,
> you'd think for the price they could make that right.
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jaime Solorza  > wrote:
>
>> The mounts are designed nicely but manufacturing sucks. The bolts cross
>> thread or seize immediately.  Had to cut bolts to finish alignment.
>> Tomorrow I will fastened the liquid right and make pretty.  Three links up.
>> Four to.go
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] is this real or a paranoid spokesperson?

[Mike Hammett]

You don't really have to know where they are too closely.. Just wander around 
looking for orange sticks. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Peter Kranz"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:33:29 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] is this real or a paranoid spokesperson? 



The splicing vaults are readily accessible if you have the right tool and know 
where they are. 

-PK 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Chuck Hogg]

Almost...There's not much left...
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin
> start enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24
> from our upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some
> magic, I freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request,
> with a lot of Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before
> they tank me on our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
> On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
> >
> > well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4
> acquisitions? or black market? lol
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Josh Luthman]

Iirc there were 34x /24 left when I last looked a couple weeks ago.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jul 1, 2015 8:55 AM, "Chuck Hogg"  wrote:

> Almost...There's not much left...
> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin
>> start enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24
>> from our upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some
>> magic, I freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request,
>> with a lot of Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before
>> they tank me on our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
>> On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>> >
>> > well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4
>> acquisitions? or black market? lol
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Mike Hammett]

REMAINING IPV4 INVENTORY Discrete Block Size (CIDR) Number of Blocks Available 
/23  59 
/24 437 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:57:16 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 


Iirc there were 34x /24 left when I last looked a couple weeks ago. 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Jul 1, 2015 8:55 AM, "Chuck Hogg" < ch...@shelbybb.com > wrote: 



Almost...There's not much left... 
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html 




Regards, 
Chuck 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: 



So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro? 
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: 
> 
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Mike Hammett]

Check out the presentation ARIN gave at the last NANOG. They talked about the 
steps they'll be going through to recover allocations, but it's not expected to 
be anything significant or timely. 

Why would you NAT IPv6? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 2:24:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 


So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro? 
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: 
> 
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Chuck McCown]

If you did it right, you could run your whole company off of one single ipv6 
address.  
(Unless you have more than 281,474,976,710,656  customers).


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Check out the presentation ARIN gave at the last NANOG. They talked about the 
steps they'll be going through to recover allocations, but it's not expected to 
be anything significant or timely.

Why would you NAT IPv6?




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 2:24:41 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Josh Luthman]

Way off!!!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jul 1, 2015 8:59 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> REMAINING IPV4 INVENTORYDiscrete Block Size (CIDR)Number of Blocks
> Available/2359/24437
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>  
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>  
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Luthman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:57:16 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
> Iirc there were 34x /24 left when I last looked a couple weeks ago.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Jul 1, 2015 8:55 AM, "Chuck Hogg"  wrote:
>
>> Almost...There's not much left...
>> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin
>>> start enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24
>>> from our upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some
>>> magic, I freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request,
>>> with a lot of Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before
>>> they tank me on our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
>>> On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4
>>> acquisitions? or black market? lol
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Mike Hammett]

Why would you, though? The standard allocation is more than enough for just 
about anyone. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 8:07:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 




If you did it right, you could run your whole company off of one single ipv6 
address. 
(Unless you have more than 281,474,976,710,656 customers). 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:00 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 


Check out the presentation ARIN gave at the last NANOG. They talked about the 
steps they'll be going through to recover allocations, but it's not expected to 
be anything significant or timely. 

Why would you NAT IPv6? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 2:24:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 


So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro? 
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: 
> 
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Chuck McCown]

Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much address 
space that you will never be able to use it.  

Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with every IP 
such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right now.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:09 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Why would you, though?  The standard allocation is more than enough for just 
about anyone.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 8:07:13 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


If you did it right, you could run your whole company off of one single ipv6 
address.  
(Unless you have more than 281,474,976,710,656  customers).


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Check out the presentation ARIN gave at the last NANOG. They talked about the 
steps they'll be going through to recover allocations, but it's not expected to 
be anything significant or timely.

Why would you NAT IPv6?




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 2:24:41 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol

Re: [AFMUG] wire color standards

[Mike Hammett]

I assume that someone just wanted to be an asshole. Even if there's a 
legitimate reason, they're still an asshole. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:54:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] wire color standards 


i dont understand -/+ 
this is a dick move on an EE part. He woke up one day and said, "Im going to be 
a cock" 
I assume there is a reason, but I still like to believe in assholes. 


On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM, George Skorup < geo...@cbcast.com > wrote: 


I have a standard, but I'm sure nobody else will like it. I do red for +24, 
orange for +48 and blue for -48. Black is always return. 



On 6/29/2015 4:35 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: 


in DC I've been doing red for positive and black for negative for my entire 
life.read that in a book when I was in elementary school. 

Do they do things differently with -48? It just occurred to me that a different 
color code would be an easy way to alert people that they're seeing positive 
ground. 










-- 




If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Matt]

> Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much 
> address space that you will never be able to use it.
>
> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with every 
> IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right now.

You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Chuck McCown]

You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64 
to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming 
routers exist that would do this.


-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much 
address space that you will never be able to use it.


Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with 
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right 
now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP. 

Re: [AFMUG] is this real or a paranoid spokesperson?

[Jaime Solorza]

Had that happen when i was at SWW years ago.  Disgruntled employee cut
fiber
On Jun 30, 2015 3:44 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

>
> http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/06/30/coordinated-attack-downs-services-with-cut-lines/29527161/
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

/dons sunglasses, trenchcoat and hat

Hey man, wanna buy some IPv4?



  - Original Message - 
  From: TJ Trout 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:17 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


  well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
or black market? lol

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Adam Moffett]

YeahI think it's officially against ARIN's rules, but I have always 
assumed that those guys with /8's would start selling or leasing /24's.


On 7/1/2015 9:57 AM, Glen Waldrop wrote:

/dons sunglasses, trenchcoat and hat
Hey man, wanna buy some IPv4?

- Original Message -
*From:* TJ Trout 
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:17 PM
*Subject:* [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4
acquisitions? or black market? lol

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Adam Moffett]

True, but it also becomes true by adding a single firewall rule that 
drops new incoming connections.


On 7/1/2015 10:00 AM, Glen Waldrop wrote:

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the 
first 64 to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the 
subscribers.  Assuming routers exist that would do this.


-Original Message- From: Matt
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Just saying that NAT is not needed. Every single IP gives you so 
much address space that you will never be able to use it.


Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come 
with every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole 
planet right now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Josh Luthman]

What's the argument?  Are you suggesting that NAT is in any way secure?


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Glen Waldrop 
wrote:

> Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.
>
> That is my primary argument with IPv6.
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
>
>
>
>> You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.
>>
>> And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first
>> 64 to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.
>> Assuming routers exist that would do this.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>>
>>  Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
>>> address space that you will never be able to use it.
>>>
>>> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
>>> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right
>>> now.
>>>
>>
>> You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
>> respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64 
to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming 
routers exist that would do this.


-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much 
address space that you will never be able to use it.


Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with 
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet 
right now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

Moderately.

I've got firewall rules as mentioned. I just like the non-routable address.

The fact that my PC's aren't public does make me feel a little better. Every 
service I have a port forward for has a log full of hack attempts.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Luthman 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


  What's the argument?  Are you suggesting that NAT is in any way secure?




  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373


  On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases





  You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

  And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 
64 to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming 
routers exist that would do this.

  -Original Message- From: Matt
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much 
address space that you will never be able to use it.

Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with 
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right now.


  You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
  respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

[Christopher Gray]

A little off topic, but pole related:

Can poles be put in the ROW for use primarily as small towers?


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>   Yep, minimum of $2/pole per year.  Probably more like $12 to $20.
>
>  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>
>  Do those fees go to the owner of the pole? Not that theres really
> probably a market for other stuff in these areas, I assume if we put them
> in we are also on the hook for pole repairs when our drunks smash into them?
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>>   Co-ops are exempt from a bunch of regulatory things.  I don’t think
>> things have changed there.
>> But if they let anyone on, they have to let everyone on I think.  I never
>> had a problem with a co-op letting me on a pole.
>>
>>  *From:* Harold Bledsoe 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:16 PM
>> *To:* af 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>>
>>  Sort of related maybe - does anyone know if electric co-ops are still
>> exempt from FCC pole attachment rules?
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:01 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you put in poles in the ROW, they are there for anyone else to use as
>>> well I assume?
>>> If you were putting it down for long stretches like this, rural, where
>>> homesare 1/4 mile to 3 miles apart, would you put a hndhole in in front
>>> just in case? half the homes are 1/8 to 1/4 mile up a lane so it would
>>> still have a cost down the road to pick them up
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
   Yes, you can put in poles.
 No, I don’t put handholes anywhere I don’t need to.  That normally
 means splice cases.  If you can see a place where you may want to branch
 off in the future, yes put in a handhole and some slack.

 No, farmers do not do JULIE.  So you hit their irrigation lines or
 their water or sewer, you fix it.

 If you ruin a farmer’s crop, normally you pay for that too.  I don’t
 think ROWs give you surface rights.  You can still farm the land.  And
 whoever is under you has to compensate you for losses.

 Costs depend on installation technology.  Plowed, assuming you own the
 plow, you can be in the $2/foot range.
 Bored you will be in the $20/foot range.
 Rock will be more.

  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
 *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:47 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

  If there are no poles, does ROW give privilege to put them in? I
 assume that would get costly.

 Im probably wrong here, but I dont like poles of the wood kind, our
 drunks in our rural areas are masters at taking out more than one per DUI,
 we have champion drunks here. And I dee them snapped alot in the winter
 time.

 I wouldnt consider anything direct buried.


 Would you put handholes in at intersections where you would be making a
 turn?

 Do farmers do JULIE (thats our locating program in this area) before
 they tile? I assume not since they take ROW to farm, a little each year (we
 had a project go through a couple years ago where a farmer has a few miles
 of corn about 10 feet wide dug out for being in the ROW, I loved it,
 cheating tax subsidized prick)


 On average, for plowed or trenched duct, permitting costs aside, what
 is the cost per mile to run fiber (duct and fiber I assume are the only
 infrastructure costs exclusing the treminations and hardware on each end)

 On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Sterling Jacobson <
 sterl...@avative.net> wrote:

>  How do Comcast and Centurylink get that privilege then?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:20 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>
>
>
> Nope
>
>
>
> *From:* Sterling Jacobson 
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:11 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>
>
>
> Also, does this mean we can get on the city/plat developers list and
> put conduit in open trench and see/approve developer ROW plans?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:06 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>
>
>
> Ye’all have rights for ROWs now.  Was in the latest report and order
> from the FCC.  If you are a BIAS provider (which you all are) you are
> considered a “public utility” for the purpose of obtain ROW access.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett 
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

[Chuck McCown]

I have put towers in the ROW for use a towers, so I would presume yes.

From: Christopher Gray 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

A little off topic, but pole related: 

Can poles be put in the ROW for use primarily as small towers?



On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Yep, minimum of $2/pole per year.  Probably more like $12 to $20.

  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

  Do those fees go to the owner of the pole? Not that theres really probably a 
market for other stuff in these areas, I assume if we put them in we are also 
on the hook for pole repairs when our drunks smash into them?

  On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Co-ops are exempt from a bunch of regulatory things.  I don’t think things 
have changed there.
But if they let anyone on, they have to let everyone on I think.  I never 
had a problem with a co-op letting me on a pole.  

From: Harold Bledsoe 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:16 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

Sort of related maybe - does anyone know if electric co-ops are still 
exempt from FCC pole attachment rules?

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:01 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  If you put in poles in the ROW, they are there for anyone else to use as 
well I assume? 
  If you were putting it down for long stretches like this, rural, where 
homesare 1/4 mile to 3 miles apart, would you put a hndhole in in front just in 
case? half the homes are 1/8 to 1/4 mile up a lane so it would still have a 
cost down the road to pick them up

  On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Yes, you can put in poles.
No, I don’t put handholes anywhere I don’t need to.  That normally 
means splice cases.  If you can see a place where you may want to branch off in 
the future, yes put in a handhole and some slack.

No, farmers do not do JULIE.  So you hit their irrigation lines or 
their water or sewer, you fix it.  

If you ruin a farmer’s crop, normally you pay for that too.  I don’t 
think ROWs give you surface rights.  You can still farm the land.  And whoever 
is under you has to compensate you for losses.  

Costs depend on installation technology.  Plowed, assuming you own the 
plow, you can be in the $2/foot range.
Bored you will be in the $20/foot range.
Rock will be more.  

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

If there are no poles, does ROW give privilege to put them in? I assume 
that would get costly. 

Im probably wrong here, but I dont like poles of the wood kind, our 
drunks in our rural areas are masters at taking out more than one per DUI, we 
have champion drunks here. And I dee them snapped alot in the winter time.

I wouldnt consider anything direct buried.


Would you put handholes in at intersections where you would be making a 
turn?

Do farmers do JULIE (thats our locating program in this area) before 
they tile? I assume not since they take ROW to farm, a little each year (we had 
a project go through a couple years ago where a farmer has a few miles of corn 
about 10 feet wide dug out for being in the ROW, I loved it, cheating tax 
subsidized prick)


On average, for plowed or trenched duct, permitting costs aside, what 
is the cost per mile to run fiber (duct and fiber I assume are the only 
infrastructure costs exclusing the treminations and hardware on each end)

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
 wrote:

  How do Comcast and Centurylink get that privilege then?



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:20 AM


  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country


  Nope



  From: Sterling Jacobson 

  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:11 AM

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country



  Also, does this mean we can get on the city/plat developers list and 
put conduit in open trench and see/approve developer ROW plans?



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:06 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country



  Ye’all have rights for ROWs now.  Was in the latest report and order 
from the FCC.  If you are a BIAS provider (which you all are) you are 
considered a “public utility” for the purpose of obtain ROW access.  



  From: Adam Moffett 

  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:19 AM

  To: af@afmug.com 

 

[AFMUG] Fiber Cuts

[Sam Lambie]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/california-internet-outage/29521335/

-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Paul Stewart]

I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as "false 
security" 

IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue it's 
more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get into ;)

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


>
> You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.
>
> And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64 
> to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming 
> routers exist that would do this.
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Matt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
>> Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much 
>> address space that you will never be able to use it.
>>
>> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with 
>> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet 
>> right now.
>
> You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
> respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.
> 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Paul Stewart]

Virtually nothing left that is useful … hoping that people start to take IPv6 
more seriously – your business (referring to the masses) may someday depend on 
it .. 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

 

Way off!!!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 8:59 AM, "Mike Hammett" mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:


REMAINING IPV4 INVENTORY


Discrete Block Size (CIDR)

Number of Blocks Available


/23

59


/24

437

 



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

   
  
  
 

Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com

   
  
 


  _  


From: "Josh Luthman" mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >
To: af@afmug.com  
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:57:16 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Iirc there were 34x /24 left when I last looked a couple weeks ago.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340  
Direct: 937-552-2343  
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 8:55 AM, "Chuck Hogg" mailto:ch...@shelbybb.com> > wrote:

Almost...There's not much left...

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html




Regards,
Chuck

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout" mailto:t...@voltbb.com> 
> wrote:
>
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Ken Hohhof]

NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT 
which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.


Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT 
(actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection 
tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other 
inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.


In other words, a stateful firewall.

Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like 
detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but it's 
beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.




-Original Message- 
From: Paul Stewart

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as 
"false security"


IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue 
it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get into 
;)


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64
to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming
routers exist that would do this.

-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
address space that you will never be able to use it.

Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
right now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc]

Just think of the number of IP’s assigned to organizations, but not being used.

 

 

Tyson Burris, President 
Internet Communications Inc. 
739 Commerce Dr. 
Franklin, IN 46131 
  
317-738-0320 Daytime # 
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # 
Online: www.surfici.net 

 



What can ICI do for you? 


Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. 
  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the 
addressee shown. It contains information that is 
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, 
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly 
prohibited. 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 8:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

 


REMAINING IPV4 INVENTORY


Discrete Block Size (CIDR)

Number of Blocks Available


/23

59


/24

437

 



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

   
  
  
 

Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com

   
  
 

  _  

From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:57:16 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Iirc there were 34x /24 left when I last looked a couple weeks ago.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 8:55 AM, "Chuck Hogg" mailto:ch...@shelbybb.com> > wrote:

Almost...There's not much left...

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html




Regards,
Chuck

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin start 
enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from our 
upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout" mailto:t...@voltbb.com> 
> wrote:
>
> well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 acquisitions? 
> or black market? lol

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Ken Hohhof]

ARIN activated the IPv4 Unmet Request policy (NRPM 4.1.8)  this week
with the approval of an address request that was larger than the
available inventory in the regional IPv4 free pool. Full details about
this process are available at:
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html

ARIN does still have limited amounts of IPv4 address space available in
smaller block sizes. We encourage customers to monitor the IPv4
Inventory Counter on the ARIN homepage and the breakdown of the
remaining IPv4 inventory found on our IPv4 Depletion page:
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html

Organizations that need larger amounts of address space are encouraged
to make use of the IPv4 transfer market for those needs. ARIN also
reminds organizations of the ample availability of IPv6 address space,
and encourages organizations to evaluate IPv6 address space for their
ongoing public Internet network activities.

Please contact hostmas...@arin.net or our Help Desk +1.703.227.0660 if
you have questions about IPv4 availability.

We also host a recurring blog on IPv4 depletion status on the Team ARIN
website to keep the community informed about the status of the ARIN IPv4
free pool:
http://teamarin.net/category/ipv4-depletion

Regards,

John Curran
President & CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



___
ARIN-Announce
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Announce Mailing List (arin-annou...@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.





From: Paul Stewart 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:55 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Virtually nothing left that is useful … hoping that people start to take IPv6 
more seriously – your business (referring to the masses) may someday depend on 
it .. 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

 

Way off!!!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 8:59 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

REMAINING IPV4 INVENTORY
   
Discrete Block Size (CIDR)
   Number of Blocks Available
   
/23
   59
   
/24
   437
   

   



  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



  Midwest Internet Exchange
  http://www.midwest-ix.com




--

  From: "Josh Luthman" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:57:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

  Iirc there were 34x /24 left when I last looked a couple weeks ago.

  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373

  On Jul 1, 2015 8:55 AM, "Chuck Hogg"  wrote:

Almost...There's not much left...

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html




Regards,
Chuck

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  So how does this work? The boss dicked me on prior request. Will arin 
start enforcing allocations and recover the pirate space? I just got a /24 from 
our upstream but that's going away in the near term when they do some magic, I 
freed most of our /22 to reallocate appropriately for a request, with a lot of 
Nat. Is Xerox going to have to give up their bazillion before they tank me on 
our space? Does ip6 even NAT bro?
  On Jun 30, 2015 11:17 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
  >
  > well ipv4 is officially gone. has anyone done any private ipv4 
acquisitions? or black market? lol

 

   

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security issue 
yet.


I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my network 
is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.


We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us 
down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.


I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly 
on the Internet certainly seems better to me.




- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Hohhof" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT 
which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.


Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT 
(actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection 
tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other 
inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.


In other words, a stateful firewall.

Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like 
detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but 
it's beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.




-Original Message- 
From: Paul Stewart

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as 
"false security"


IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue 
it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get 
into ;)


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 
64

to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming
routers exist that would do this.

-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
address space that you will never be able to use it.

Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
right now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Ken Hohhof]

Just to clarify, I'm agreeing with you.

IPv6 on the other hand would be security through obscurity if you don't 
implement a firewall.  Which I assume everyone would do.  But we know what 
happens when you ass-u-me.



-Original Message- 
From: Glen Waldrop

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:15 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security issue
yet.

I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my network
is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.

We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us
down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.

I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly
on the Internet certainly seems better to me.



- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Hohhof" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT 
which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.


Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT 
(actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection 
tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other 
inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.


In other words, a stateful firewall.

Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like 
detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but 
it's beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.




-Original Message- 
From: Paul Stewart

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as 
"false security"


IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue 
it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get 
into ;)


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 
64

to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming
routers exist that would do this.

-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
address space that you will never be able to use it.

Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
right now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Mike Hammett]

I forget what it's called, but there's a component of IPv6 where a computer 
*can* use a new IP address for each request to avoid tracking. Disposable IPs, 
though obviously the service provider knows the range they've allocated for 
legal purposes. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Paul Stewart"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:52:23 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 

I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as "false 
security" 

IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue it's 
more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get into ;) 

-Original Message- 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public. 

That is my primary argument with IPv6. 



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown"  
To:  
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 


> 
> You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars. 
> 
> And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64 
> to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers. Assuming 
> routers exist that would do this. 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Matt 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 
> 
>> Just saying that NAT is not needed. Every single IP gives you so much 
>> address space that you will never be able to use it. 
>> 
>> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with 
>> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet 
>> right now. 
> 
> You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most 
> respects does. A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP. 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Paul Stewart]

One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to get the 
same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always "how do you 
know you haven't had a security issue?".

It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been breached.  
I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had been pawned and 
they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the previous 3 years 
someone had full access remotely to that server and had been gathering data 
from it on regular basis.  This server was behind two layers of firewalls, host 
IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and anti-virus.  Pretty extreme example but 
have seen it happen more than once...


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security issue 
yet.

I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my network is 
owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.

We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us down 
so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.

I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly on 
the Internet certainly seems better to me.



- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


>
> NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT 
> which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.
>
> Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT 
> (actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection 
> tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other 
> inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.
>
> In other words, a stateful firewall.
>
> Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like 
> detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but 
> it's beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.
>
>
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Paul Stewart
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
> I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
> obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as 
> "false security"
>
> IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue 
> it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get 
> into ;)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
> Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.
>
> That is my primary argument with IPv6.
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
>
>>
>> You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.
>>
>> And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 
>> 64
>> to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming
>> routers exist that would do this.
>>
>> -Original Message- 
>> From: Matt
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>>
>>> Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
>>> address space that you will never be able to use it.
>>>
>>> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
>>> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
>>> right now.
>>
>> You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
>> respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.
>>
>
>
>
> 

[AFMUG] 3650 registration

[Dan Petermann]

Is there someplace on the Cambium website that has a tutorial on registering 
locations?


I need the following info:
Transmit antenna transmission code
Transmit antenna transmission code if others apply?
Digital Modulation type
The specific band within the 3.65 band

Re: [AFMUG] 3650 registration

[Matt Mangriotis]

Why yes there is... there is a FCC Registration walkthrough at:

https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/pmp450/#r3
Let me know if you are still missing any information.

Matt

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dan Petermann
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] 3650 registration

Is there someplace on the Cambium website that has a tutorial on registering 
locations?


I need the following info:
Transmit antenna transmission code
Transmit antenna transmission code if others apply?
Digital Modulation type
The specific band within the 3.65 band

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on their
networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and spf
I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit access
to only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we could
add all our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has
subnets)

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart  wrote:

> One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to
> get the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always
> "how do you know you haven't had a security issue?".
>
> It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced
> security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been
> breached.  I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had
> been pawned and they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for
> the previous 3 years someone had full access remotely to that server and
> had been gathering data from it on regular basis.  This server was behind
> two layers of firewalls, host IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and
> anti-virus.  Pretty extreme example but have seen it happen more than
> once...
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
> Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security
> issue yet.
>
> I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my
> network is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.
>
> We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us
> down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.
>
> I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly
> on the Internet certainly seems better to me.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ken Hohhof" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
>
> >
> > NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT
> > which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.
> >
> > Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT
> > (actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on
> connection
> > tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other
> > inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.
> >
> > In other words, a stateful firewall.
> >
> > Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like
> > detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but
> > it's beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Stewart
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> >
> > I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through
> > obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as
> > "false security"
> >
> > IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would
> argue
> > it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get
> > into ;)
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> >
> > Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.
> >
> > That is my primary argument with IPv6.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Chuck McCown" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.
> >>
> >> And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first
> >> 64
> >> to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.
> Assuming
> >> routers exist that would do this.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Matt
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> >>
> >>> Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
> >>> address space that you will never be able to use it.
> >>>
> >>> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
> >>> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
> >>> right now.
> >>
> >> You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
> >> respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have a

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Cassidy B. Larson]

Doing an ifconfig on a Mac and you’ll see a lot of “temporary” IPv6 addresses.  
These are used for outbound connections on a temporary basis and get phased out 
routinely and replaced with new temporary IPv6 addresses for new outbound 
connections.  I currently show 8 temporary IPv6 IPs.   How Windows handles the 
temporary issues I can’t remember.  The main IP for inbound connections still 
exists and is persistent on reboot, but how many bots are going to scan all 18 
quintillion IPv6 addresses in my one /64 alone for open ports?



> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> I forget what it's called, but there's a component of IPv6 where a computer 
> *can* use a new IP address for each request to avoid tracking. Disposable 
> IPs, though obviously the service provider knows the range they've allocated 
> for legal purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
>   
>  
> 
> From: "Paul Stewart" mailto:p...@paulstewart.org>>
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:52:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through 
> obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as 
> "false security"
> 
> IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue 
> it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get into 
> ;)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.
> 
> That is my primary argument with IPv6.
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chuck McCown" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>>
> To: mailto:af@afmug.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> 
> >
> > You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.
> >
> > And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64
> > to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming
> > routers exist that would do this.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> >
> >> Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
> >> address space that you will never be able to use it.
> >>
> >> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
> >> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
> >> right now.
> >
> > You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
> > respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.
> >

[AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

[Josh Luthman]

Last month I only paid 0.0206.  Low cost and great phone support.  I'm not
sure it's perfect but damn they're close.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

For one I've got 5 PC's on this network that I use regularly, never had an 
issue. Secondly, whenever *anything* hinky is going on (here, there, QoS 
tweaking, etc) I torch the Ethernet connection to see what is going on and 
where it is being dropped.


I forgot to mention earlier, we have had an issue with my Linux email 
server, security flaw, patched and now secured by the Mikrotik rather than 
it's own firewall.


I see in my logs where people are attacking my network constantly. I'd much 
rather have 10-15 points to defend than hundreds.




- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stewart" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases



One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to get 
the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always "how do 
you know you haven't had a security issue?".


It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been 
breached.  I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had 
been pawned and they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the 
previous 3 years someone had full access remotely to that server and had 
been gathering data from it on regular basis.  This server was behind two 
layers of firewalls, host IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and anti-virus. 
Pretty extreme example but have seen it happen more than once...



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security issue 
yet.


I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my network 
is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.


We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us 
down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.


I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly 
on the Internet certainly seems better to me.




- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Hohhof" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT
which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.

Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT
(actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection
tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other
inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.

In other words, a stateful firewall.

Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like
detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but
it's beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.



-Original Message- 
From: Paul Stewart

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through
obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as
"false security"

IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue
it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get
into ;)

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.

That is my primary argument with IPv6.



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases




You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars.

And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first
64
to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers.  Assuming
routers exist that would do this.

-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


Just saying that NAT is not needed.  Every single IP gives you so much
address space that you will never be able to use it.

Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with
every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet
right now.


You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most
respects does.  A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.

[AFMUG] AT&T Microcell issues

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Did AT&T make some change to their microcells? We have customers callin in
alot with their microcells no longer working. I initially thought it was
because we moved some customers to some IP space we borrowed from our
upstream. But we have had a couple that didnt change and one that actually
is triple NAT.

We dont support these things at all, we just make sure their on a public
and tell them to call AT&T to recommend a compatible router and provide
configuration instruction so its not a support issue im concerned about,
just curious if others are seeing this.

We did change from static routing to OSPF, but I cant imagine that would
have had any impact since the customers are still traversing the same path

-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] AT&T Microcell issues

[Chris Fabien]

We have one customer reporting this as well. Seems to have started a few
weeks ago. had them bring it to the office to test, worked fine, but will
not work at their house behind a ubnt radio.
On Jul 1, 2015 11:57 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

> Did AT&T make some change to their microcells? We have customers callin in
> alot with their microcells no longer working. I initially thought it was
> because we moved some customers to some IP space we borrowed from our
> upstream. But we have had a couple that didnt change and one that actually
> is triple NAT.
>
> We dont support these things at all, we just make sure their on a public
> and tell them to call AT&T to recommend a compatible router and provide
> configuration instruction so its not a support issue im concerned about,
> just curious if others are seeing this.
>
> We did change from static routing to OSPF, but I cant imagine that would
> have had any impact since the customers are still traversing the same path
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Justin Wilson - MTIN]

IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to remember ip 
addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend systems are going to become more 
and more critical to the ISPs who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, more and more 
managed routers are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  Those who support 
customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the same philosophy 
with V6 routers.  Full IPv6 support is severely lacking in many manufacturers.  
So, now you have semi-compliant devices out there with buggy software doing 
weird things.  This becomes a troubleshooting nightmare for folks.To combat 
this I think we will see those deploying V6 sending out a “modem” or managed 
router that is the endpoint.   Right now, if you are running your CPE in router 
mode (which I encourage) your options for V6 support are very limited.  
Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT won’t.  Cambium won’t.  

The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is just security by 
obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the typical home user it’s on the 
borderline of good enough.   As folks move away from nat to V6 you will also 
see performance increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a 
performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation tables and the 
like.

V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc.  You simply need a firewall that 
understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP management software can help 
you. Some of them out there can export to DNS, can create iptables rules, etc.  
 With V6 the goal is to have more things automated on the backend.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net   Managed Services – xISP Solutions – 
Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com  Podcast about 
xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com  Peering – Transit – 
Internet Exchange 

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
>  wrote:
> 
> I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
> but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on their 
> networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and spf
> I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
> We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit access to 
> only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we could add 
> all our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has subnets) 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart  > wrote:
> One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to get 
> the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always "how do 
> you know you haven't had a security issue?".
> 
> It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
> security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been 
> breached.  I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had 
> been pawned and they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the 
> previous 3 years someone had full access remotely to that server and had been 
> gathering data from it on regular basis.  This server was behind two layers 
> of firewalls, host IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and anti-virus.  Pretty 
> extreme example but have seen it happen more than once...
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security issue 
> yet.
> 
> I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my network 
> is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.
> 
> We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us 
> down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.
> 
> I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly on 
> the Internet certainly seems better to me.
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:af...@kwisp.com>>
> To: mailto:af@afmug.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> 
> >
> > NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT
> > which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.
> >
> > Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT
> > (actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection
> > tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other
> > inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.
> >
> > In other words, a stateful firewall.
> >
> > Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like
> > detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah t

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

[Mathew Howard]

Interesting... so in theory, we can go and stick towers in ROW now? I
assume there must be restrictions on what sort of poles/tower can be put in?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>   I have put towers in the ROW for use a towers, so I would presume yes.
>
>  *From:* Christopher Gray 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:30 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>
>  A little off topic, but pole related:
>
> Can poles be put in the ROW for use primarily as small towers?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>>   Yep, minimum of $2/pole per year.  Probably more like $12 to $20.
>>
>>  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:30 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>>
>>  Do those fees go to the owner of the pole? Not that theres really
>> probably a market for other stuff in these areas, I assume if we put them
>> in we are also on the hook for pole repairs when our drunks smash into them?
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>>   Co-ops are exempt from a bunch of regulatory things.  I don’t think
>>> things have changed there.
>>> But if they let anyone on, they have to let everyone on I think.  I
>>> never had a problem with a co-op letting me on a pole.
>>>
>>>  *From:* Harold Bledsoe 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:16 PM
>>> *To:* af 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>>>
>>>  Sort of related maybe - does anyone know if electric co-ops are still
>>> exempt from FCC pole attachment rules?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:01 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 If you put in poles in the ROW, they are there for anyone else to use
 as well I assume?
 If you were putting it down for long stretches like this, rural, where
 homesare 1/4 mile to 3 miles apart, would you put a hndhole in in front
 just in case? half the homes are 1/8 to 1/4 mile up a lane so it would
 still have a cost down the road to pick them up

 On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>   Yes, you can put in poles.
> No, I don’t put handholes anywhere I don’t need to.  That normally
> means splice cases.  If you can see a place where you may want to branch
> off in the future, yes put in a handhole and some slack.
>
> No, farmers do not do JULIE.  So you hit their irrigation lines or
> their water or sewer, you fix it.
>
> If you ruin a farmer’s crop, normally you pay for that too.  I don’t
> think ROWs give you surface rights.  You can still farm the land.  And
> whoever is under you has to compensate you for losses.
>
> Costs depend on installation technology.  Plowed, assuming you own the
> plow, you can be in the $2/foot range.
> Bored you will be in the $20/foot range.
> Rock will be more.
>
>  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:47 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>
>  If there are no poles, does ROW give privilege to put them in? I
> assume that would get costly.
>
> Im probably wrong here, but I dont like poles of the wood kind, our
> drunks in our rural areas are masters at taking out more than one per DUI,
> we have champion drunks here. And I dee them snapped alot in the winter
> time.
>
> I wouldnt consider anything direct buried.
>
>
> Would you put handholes in at intersections where you would be making
> a turn?
>
> Do farmers do JULIE (thats our locating program in this area) before
> they tile? I assume not since they take ROW to farm, a little each year 
> (we
> had a project go through a couple years ago where a farmer has a few miles
> of corn about 10 feet wide dug out for being in the ROW, I loved it,
> cheating tax subsidized prick)
>
>
> On average, for plowed or trenched duct, permitting costs aside, what
> is the cost per mile to run fiber (duct and fiber I assume are the only
> infrastructure costs exclusing the treminations and hardware on each end)
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Sterling Jacobson <
> sterl...@avative.net> wrote:
>
>>  How do Comcast and Centurylink get that privilege then?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:20 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sterling Jacobson 
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:11 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, does this mean we can get on the city/plat developers list and
>> put conduit in open tre

Re: [AFMUG] 3650 registration

[Dan Petermann]

Thank you very much!

On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Matt Mangriotis 
 wrote:

> Why yes there is… there is a FCC Registration walkthrough at:
>  
> https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/pmp450/#r3
> Let me know if you are still missing any information.
>  
> Matt
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dan Petermann
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:27 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] 3650 registration
>  
> Is there someplace on the Cambium website that has a tutorial on registering 
> locations?
>  
>  
> I need the following info:
> Transmit antenna transmission code
> Transmit antenna transmission code if others apply?
> Digital Modulation type
> The specific band within the 3.65 band

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

[Mike Hammett]

They should be calling JULIE. If not, it's their ass on the line. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:47:40 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country 


If there are no poles, does ROW give privilege to put them in? I assume that 
would get costly. 


Im probably wrong here, but I dont like poles of the wood kind, our drunks in 
our rural areas are masters at taking out more than one per DUI, we have 
champion drunks here. And I dee them snapped alot in the winter time. 


I wouldnt consider anything direct buried. 




Would you put handholes in at intersections where you would be making a turn? 


Do farmers do JULIE (thats our locating program in this area) before they tile? 
I assume not since they take ROW to farm, a little each year (we had a project 
go through a couple years ago where a farmer has a few miles of corn about 10 
feet wide dug out for being in the ROW, I loved it, cheating tax subsidized 
prick) 




On average, for plowed or trenched duct, permitting costs aside, what is the 
cost per mile to run fiber (duct and fiber I assume are the only infrastructure 
costs exclusing the treminations and hardware on each end) 


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Sterling Jacobson < sterl...@avative.net > 
wrote: 





How do Comcast and Centurylink get that privilege then? 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:20 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country 







Nope 






From: Sterling Jacobson 

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:11 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country 



Also, does this mean we can get on the city/plat developers list and put 
conduit in open trench and see/approve developer ROW plans? 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:06 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country 




Ye’all have rights for ROWs now. Was in the latest report and order from the 
FCC. If you are a BIAS provider (which you all are) you are considered a 
“public utility” for the purpose of obtain ROW access. 






From: Adam Moffett 

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:19 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country 



The original rule of thumb was something to do with what size stick you can use 
to beat your wife/kids without breaking the law. 144 strand loose tube is about 
the size of a thumb, so in some jurisdictions you might have been able to 
discipline your family with it. Say hi to your thumb for me. 

Aerial is cheaper if you have pole attachment rights. You don't need pole 
attachment rights (or any special rights) to bury in a ROW, but you can point 
at it when some guvmint goon questions you. It looks kind of official. 

On 6/30/2015 12:04 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: 



Say you want to run fiber for 10 miles. 

Aside from the boring equipment and permits what does that entail? 



I know there are 36 bazillion answers, but humor me. 



Details like how often you need handholes and how to deal with slacking for cut 
fiber splicing would be very helpful. 



What is a rule of thumb in your long term planning on how often you can expect 
a fiber cut. (an example of rule of thumb is I expect a storm related issue at 
least once every three years at every site, there is no actual science, or 
math, I just look at my thumb and it provides me sage answers) 



-- 




If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. 








-- 




If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. 

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[Roger Timmerman]

I like XKCD's map of IP allocations. It's somewhat out of date, but does
show where a lot of waste is at, which hasn't changed much since this was
created.

https://xkcd.com/195/

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Mathew Howard 
wrote:

> Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot worse
> wastes of IPs than the HAMs.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>>
>>> speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does anyone else think
>>> it's excessive that arpa net or whatever has a /8 issued to them? 16
>>> million some precious ipv4 for "testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham radio
>>> rights, but seriously ?
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AT&T Microcell issues

[Justin Wilson - MTIN]

Things to check.

1.Does the whois of these IPs correspond correctly? These could be geolocated 
to the wrong country. Start here. http://www.iplocation.net/ 


I would make sure your OSPF is taking the same path in and out of the towers.  
If OSPF is not weighted properly you could be sending traffic out one interface 
and it could be coming back in another interface.  Things would work, but VOIP 
and other time sensitive protocols run into issues.  I had a client that ran 
into this issue last week.  They adjusted their OSPF costs but did not take 
into account the return path.  Keep in mind OSPF is from the router’s 
perspective and both inbound and outbound has to be taken into account.  Most 
folks just think about the outbound path from that router.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net   Managed Services – xISP Solutions – 
Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com  Podcast about 
xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com  Peering – Transit – 
Internet Exchange 

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:57 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
>  wrote:
> 
> Did AT&T make some change to their microcells? We have customers callin in 
> alot with their microcells no longer working. I initially thought it was 
> because we moved some customers to some IP space we borrowed from our 
> upstream. But we have had a couple that didnt change and one that actually is 
> triple NAT.
> 
> We dont support these things at all, we just make sure their on a public and 
> tell them to call AT&T to recommend a compatible router and provide 
> configuration instruction so its not a support issue im concerned about, just 
> curious if others are seeing this.
> 
> We did change from static routing to OSPF, but I cant imagine that would have 
> had any impact since the customers are still traversing the same path
> 
> -- 
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country

[Justin Wilson - MTIN]

They have what is called Right of Way access.  If you are a registered utility 
in most states you can get this.  This varies from state to state on what has 
to happen to do this.  

Justin

---
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net   Managed Services – xISP Solutions – 
Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com  Podcast about 
xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com  Peering – Transit – 
Internet Exchange 

> On Jun 30, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> How do Comcast and Centurylink get that privilege then?
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:20 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>  
> Nope
>  
> From: Sterling Jacobson 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:11 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>  
> Also, does this mean we can get on the city/plat developers list and put 
> conduit in open trench and see/approve developer ROW plans?
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:06 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>  
> Ye’all have rights for ROWs now.  Was in the latest report and order from the 
> FCC.  If you are a BIAS provider (which you all are) you are considered a 
> “public utility” for the purpose of obtain ROW access.  
>  
> From: Adam Moffett 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:19 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber in the country
>  
> The original rule of thumb was something to do with what size stick you can 
> use to beat your wife/kids without breaking the law.  144 strand loose tube 
> is about the size of a thumb, so in some jurisdictions you might have been 
> able to discipline your family with it.  Say hi to your thumb for me.
> 
> Aerial is cheaper if you have pole attachment rights.  You don't need pole 
> attachment rights (or any special rights) to bury in a ROW, but you can point 
> at it when some guvmint goon questions you.  It looks kind of official.
> 
> On 6/30/2015 12:04 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
> Say you want to run fiber for 10 miles.
> Aside from the boring equipment and permits what does that entail?
>  
> I know there are 36 bazillion answers, but humor me.
>  
> Details like how often you need handholes and how to deal with slacking for 
> cut fiber splicing would be very helpful.
>  
> What is a rule of thumb in your long term planning on how often you can 
> expect a fiber cut. (an example of rule of thumb is I expect a storm related 
> issue at least once every three years at every site, there is no actual 
> science, or math, I just look at my thumb and it provides me sage answers)
>  
> -- 
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>  

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

I think we're having two different conversations here.

I'm using NAT with a firewall. I don't think anyone is saying NAT by itself is 
secure.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Justin Wilson - MTIN 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


  IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to remember ip 
addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend systems are going to become more 
and more critical to the ISPs who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, more and more 
managed routers are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  Those who support 
customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the same philosophy 
with V6 routers.  Full IPv6 support is severely lacking in many manufacturers.  
So, now you have semi-compliant devices out there with buggy software doing 
weird things.  This becomes a troubleshooting nightmare for folks.To combat 
this I think we will see those deploying V6 sending out a “modem” or managed 
router that is the endpoint.   Right now, if you are running your CPE in router 
mode (which I encourage) your options for V6 support are very limited.  
Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT won’t.  Cambium won’t.  



  The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is just security by 
obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the typical home user it’s on the 
borderline of good enough.   As folks move away from nat to V6 you will also 
see performance increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a 
performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation tables and the 
like.


  V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc.  You simply need a firewall that 
understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP management software can help 
you. Some of them out there can export to DNS, can create iptables rules, etc.  
 With V6 the goal is to have more things automated on the backend.


  Justin


  ---
  Justin Wilson 
  http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
  http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
  http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange 


On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:


I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on their 
networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and spf
I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit access 
to only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we could add 
all our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has subnets) 


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart  wrote:

  One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to 
get the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always "how 
do you know you haven't had a security issue?".

  It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been breached.  
I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had been pawned and 
they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the previous 3 years 
someone had full access remotely to that server and had been gathering data 
from it on regular basis.  This server was behind two layers of firewalls, host 
IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and anti-virus.  Pretty extreme example but 
have seen it happen more than once...


  -Original Message-
  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
  Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

  Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security 
issue yet.

  I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my 
network is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.

  We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut 
us down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.

  I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network 
directly on the Internet certainly seems better to me.



  - Original Message -
  From: "Ken Hohhof" 
  To: 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


  >
  > NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 
NAT
  > which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.
  >
  > Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for 
NAT
  > (actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on 
connection
  > tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other
  > inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dst

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Justin Wilson - MTIN]

In order for networks to grow they will need to have the ability to push public 
IPs to the customer.  I totally see a point where every device on a customer’s 
lan needs to have a public IP address.   We are already seeing the trend toward 
this.  Home security systems, IP enabled appliances, multiple Netflix boxes, 
and all these devices which communicate somewhere.   So far, ISPs have been 
able to deal with this because the developers recognize this is the way things 
are.  Anyone who has received the call “my Xbox says restricted nat” has 
experienced this. 

We all know you can do port forwarding in routers, etc.  But as the household 
becomes more and more dynamic people are going to want to deal with the hassle 
of this.  They just want stuff to work.  Being able to give everyone a public 
IP, and even being able to give every device a public will become something 
consumers will demand.  Not everyone, but the apps and systems will drive the 
need.  Right now there are no “killer apps” that take advantage of the 
advantages of v6.  This already happens on the cell phone networks.  Phones 
which can do V6 have access to more network features.  Granted, the software 
rarely take advantage but they are there.

Imagine the day when Microsoft says you can get this ultra cool new feature in 
the latest XboX if your provider supports IPv6.  The Comcast pipes up and says 
they support it.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange 

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:48 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
> 
> For one I've got 5 PC's on this network that I use regularly, never had an 
> issue. Secondly, whenever *anything* hinky is going on (here, there, QoS 
> tweaking, etc) I torch the Ethernet connection to see what is going on and 
> where it is being dropped.
> 
> I forgot to mention earlier, we have had an issue with my Linux email server, 
> security flaw, patched and now secured by the Mikrotik rather than it's own 
> firewall.
> 
> I see in my logs where people are attacking my network constantly. I'd much 
> rather have 10-15 points to defend than hundreds.
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Paul Stewart" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> 
> 
> One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to get 
> the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always "how do 
> you know you haven't had a security issue?".
> 
> It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
> security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been 
> breached.  I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had 
> been pawned and they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the 
> previous 3 years someone had full access remotely to that server and had been 
> gathering data from it on regular basis.  This server was behind two layers 
> of firewalls, host IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and anti-virus. Pretty 
> extreme example but have seen it happen more than once...
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security issue 
> yet.
> 
> I've got a firewall configured on the MT. The only way I see into my network 
> is owning one of my routers, though you guys may educate me.
> 
> We've had plenty of attempts. The only thing that has successfully shut us 
> down so far was the DNS DDoS attack saturating our fiber.
> 
> I know nothing is 100% secure, but not having my personal network directly on 
> the Internet certainly seems better to me.
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Ken Hohhof" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
> 
> 
>> 
>> NAT is not security through obscurity, unless you're referring to 1:1 NAT
>> which is not what most people mean when they say NAT.
>> 
>> Setting up NAT in a Mikrotik illuminates the situation.  In order for NAT
>> (actually overloaded dynamic NAT/PAT) to work, you must turn on connection
>> tracking, allow incoming established and related, and block all other
>> inbound traffic unless port forwarding is set up via dstnat.
>> 
>> In other words, a stateful firewall.
>> 
>> Now if you're talking about advanced firewall functions like
>> detecting/blocking/reporting intrusion attempts, yeah that's great, but
>> it's beyond what 99.99% of people implement in their firewall.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Paul Stewart
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:52 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>> 
>> I'm not s

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Justin Wilson - MTIN]

Very Correct Glen.  Nat is not secure.  It’s like blending your door into the 
rest of your house.  The door is still there just a little harder to find.  But 
if there are no locks it’s still an unlocked door.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net   Managed Services – xISP Solutions – 
Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com  Podcast about 
xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com  Peering – Transit – 
Internet Exchange 

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
> 
> I think we're having two different conversations here.
> 
> I'm using NAT with a firewall. I don't think anyone is saying NAT by itself 
> is secure.
>  
>  
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: Justin Wilson - MTIN 
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>> 
>> IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to remember ip 
>> addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend systems are going to become 
>> more and more critical to the ISPs who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, more 
>> and more managed routers are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  Those 
>> who support customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the 
>> same philosophy with V6 routers.  Full IPv6 support is severely lacking in 
>> many manufacturers.  So, now you have semi-compliant devices out there with 
>> buggy software doing weird things.  This becomes a troubleshooting nightmare 
>> for folks.To combat this I think we will see those deploying V6 sending 
>> out a “modem” or managed router that is the endpoint.   Right now, if you 
>> are running your CPE in router mode (which I encourage) your options for V6 
>> support are very limited.  Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT won’t.  Cambium 
>> won’t.  
>> 
>> The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is just security 
>> by obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the typical home user it’s on 
>> the borderline of good enough.   As folks move away from nat to V6 you will 
>> also see performance increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a 
>> performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation tables and the 
>> like.
>> 
>> V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc.  You simply need a firewall that 
>> understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP management software can 
>> help you. Some of them out there can export to DNS, can create iptables 
>> rules, etc.   With V6 the goal is to have more things automated on the 
>> backend.
>> 
>> Justin
>> 
>> ---
>> Justin Wilson mailto:j...@mtin.net>>
>> http://www.mtin.net   Managed Services – xISP 
>> Solutions – Data Centers
>> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com  Podcast 
>> about xISP topics
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com  Peering – Transit – 
>> Internet Exchange 
>> 
>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
>>> mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
>>> but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on their 
>>> networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and spf
>>> I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
>>> We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit access 
>>> to only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we could 
>>> add all our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has 
>>> subnets) 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart >> > wrote:
 One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to 
 get the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always 
 "how do you know you haven't had a security issue?".
 
 It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
 security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been 
 breached.  I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had 
 been pawned and they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for 
 the previous 3 years someone had full access remotely to that server and 
 had been gathering data from it on regular basis.  This server was behind 
 two layers of firewalls, host IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and 
 anti-virus.  Pretty extreme example but have seen it happen more than 
 once...
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
 Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
 Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
 To: af@afmug.com 
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
 
 Maybe I need to study a bit more, but I run MT, haven't had a security 
 issue yet.

Re: [AFMUG] AT&T Microcell issues

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Thats weird, one of those results (IP Address Labs) nails down the IP to
the city the customer is located in, how does it do that? Freaking NSA

The path is the same because we havent put in any alternate paths yet, just
changed to OSPF

Customers are getting port forward instructions from AT&T on these. I
really dont understand how it is in this day and age companies can produce
products that just work

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN 
wrote:

> Things to check.
>
> 1.Does the whois of these IPs correspond correctly? These could be
> geolocated to the wrong country. Start here. http://www.iplocation.net/
>
> I would make sure your OSPF is taking the same path in and out of the
> towers.  If OSPF is not weighted properly you could be sending traffic out
> one interface and it could be coming back in another interface.  Things
> would work, but VOIP and other time sensitive protocols run into issues.  I
> had a client that ran into this issue last week.  They adjusted their OSPF
> costs but did not take into account the return path.  Keep in mind OSPF is
> from the router’s perspective and both inbound and outbound has to be taken
> into account.  Most folks just think about the outbound path from that
> router.
>
> Justin
>
> ---
> Justin Wilson 
> http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
> http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange
>
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:57 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Did AT&T make some change to their microcells? We have customers callin in
> alot with their microcells no longer working. I initially thought it was
> because we moved some customers to some IP space we borrowed from our
> upstream. But we have had a couple that didnt change and one that actually
> is triple NAT.
>
> We dont support these things at all, we just make sure their on a public
> and tell them to call AT&T to recommend a compatible router and provide
> configuration instruction so its not a support issue im concerned about,
> just curious if others are seeing this.
>
> We did change from static routing to OSPF, but I cant imagine that would
> have had any impact since the customers are still traversing the same path
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[Keefe John]

Maybe they should start allocating 240.0.0.0-255.255.255.255

On 7/1/2015 11:06 AM, Roger Timmerman wrote:
I like XKCD's map of IP allocations. It's somewhat out of date, but 
does show where a lot of waste is at, which hasn't changed much since 
this was created.


https://xkcd.com/195/

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Mathew Howard > wrote:


Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot
worse wastes of IPs than the HAMs.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>>
wrote:

Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout" mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote:

speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does
anyone else think it's excessive that arpa net or whatever
has a /8 issued to them? 16 million some precious ipv4 for
"testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham radio rights, but
seriously ?

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[George Skorup]

Good luck updating every IP stack on the planet.

On 7/1/2015 11:46 AM, Keefe John wrote:

Maybe they should start allocating 240.0.0.0-255.255.255.255

On 7/1/2015 11:06 AM, Roger Timmerman wrote:
I like XKCD's map of IP allocations. It's somewhat out of date, but 
does show where a lot of waste is at, which hasn't changed much since 
this was created.


https://xkcd.com/195/

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Mathew Howard > wrote:


Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot
worse wastes of IPs than the HAMs.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout" mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote:

speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does
anyone else think it's excessive that arpa net or
whatever has a /8 issued to them? 16 million some
precious ipv4 for "testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham
radio rights, but seriously ?

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[Glen Waldrop]

Okay.

I'll just put a note in with next month's invoices... lol


  - Original Message - 
  From: George Skorup 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8


  Good luck updating every IP stack on the planet.


  On 7/1/2015 11:46 AM, Keefe John wrote:

Maybe they should start allocating 240.0.0.0-255.255.255.255


On 7/1/2015 11:06 AM, Roger Timmerman wrote:

  I like XKCD's map of IP allocations. It's somewhat out of date, but does 
show where a lot of waste is at, which hasn't changed much since this was 
created. 


  https://xkcd.com/195/



  On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:

Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot worse 
wastes of IPs than the HAMs.


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman 
 wrote:

  Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8?

  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373

  On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:

speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does anyone else 
think it's excessive that arpa net or whatever has a /8 issued to them? 16 
million some precious ipv4 for "testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham radio 
rights, but seriously ?

Re: [AFMUG] AT&T Microcell issues

[Bill Prince]

I assume it's the upside-down "Y" thing (formerly) made by Cisco?

They have had a number of issues.

At one point, they cross-checked the address with the GPS coordinates, 
and if the GPS coordinates weren't within 1/4 or so of the address, they 
would refuse to connect. I thought they fixed this, but really don't 
know. Addresses in our area are very haphazard, and the "location" of 
the street address is often off by more than a mile (I think our street 
address is almost 2 miles off the mark).


If you are NATting in the SM, there are some issues WRT address resolution.

Older Canopy firmware (prior to 13.4) either breaks (or doesn't break) 
packets on boundaries that are "acceptable" to the AT&T femtocell.


We have had the best luck by putting the SM in bridge mode.

They also take a horrendous amount time to "sync up" with the network 
(sometimes hours). Make sure they are close to a window so they can 
obtain a GPS fix.



bp


On 7/1/2015 8:57 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
Did AT&T make some change to their microcells? We have customers 
callin in alot with their microcells no longer working. I initially 
thought it was because we moved some customers to some IP space we 
borrowed from our upstream. But we have had a couple that didnt change 
and one that actually is triple NAT.


We dont support these things at all, we just make sure their on a 
public and tell them to call AT&T to recommend a compatible router and 
provide configuration instruction so its not a support issue im 
concerned about, just curious if others are seeing this.


We did change from static routing to OSPF, but I cant imagine that 
would have had any impact since the customers are still traversing the 
same path


--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[Mike Hammett]

It would take longer to get those fixes done than to get IPv6 implemented. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Keefe John"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:46:35 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8 

Maybe they should start allocating 240.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 


On 7/1/2015 11:06 AM, Roger Timmerman wrote: 



I like XKCD's map of IP allocations. It's somewhat out of date, but does show 
where a lot of waste is at, which hasn't changed much since this was created. 


https://xkcd.com/195/ 



On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot worse wastes 
of IPs than the HAMs. 


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 



Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8? 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 


On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: 



speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does anyone else think it's 
excessive that arpa net or whatever has a /8 issued to them? 16 million some 
precious ipv4 for "testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham radio rights, but 
seriously ? 

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[Josh Luthman]

It doesn't work on Cisco.  Someone on NANOG just tried to use it
(internally).


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

>  Good luck updating every IP stack on the planet.
>
> On 7/1/2015 11:46 AM, Keefe John wrote:
>
> Maybe they should start allocating 240.0.0.0-255.255.255.255
>
> On 7/1/2015 11:06 AM, Roger Timmerman wrote:
>
> I like XKCD's map of IP allocations. It's somewhat out of date, but does
> show where a lot of waste is at, which hasn't changed much since this was
> created.
>
>  https://xkcd.com/195/
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot worse
>> wastes of IPs than the HAMs.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8?
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>   On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>>>
 speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does anyone else
 think it's excessive that arpa net or whatever has a /8 issued to them? 16
 million some precious ipv4 for "testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham radio
 rights, but seriously ?

>>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FSK 900mhz AP to SM should it read the same as a SM?

[Brandon Yuchasz]

Quick follow up. Climb resolved it. Hung a P10 and we saw a 7db change on
those customers having issues. They dropped into 2x and are running well. I
did not compare the numbers on the closer customers.

 

Best regards,

Brandon Yuchasz

GogebicRange.net

www.gogebicrange.net  

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brandon Yuchasz
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK 900mhz AP to SM should it read the same as a SM?

 

Ok so  to answer Steve's question. No filter on this I have never seen one
of the filters but have heard of them. 

 

I should point out that this AP is deployed now. The test as a SM was done a
few weeks ago along with a bunch of other equipment most SMs came in around
-72 a few came in around -80. We tested a  couple APs and they both were
-80ish. We assumed at the time that it was normal. Now I am doubting that
assumption.  This deployed AP is having some issues with far out SMs in the
8 and 9 mile range. The AP it replaced was not having these issues although
this one is higher  in elevation than the last one so not everything is
identical.

 

At this point a climb is planned for the AM to put in a p10 AP.

Best regards,

Brandon Yuchasz

GogebicRange.net

www.gogebicrange.net  

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of cstann...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 7:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK 900mhz AP to SM should it read the same as a SM?

 

>From what I understand FSK Canopy doesn't estimate incoming signal level,
more that it adjusts the rx pre-amp until it sees a signal it likes and then
based on rx pre-amp setting it guesses what the incoming signal was. So 2
different Canopy units can in the exact same situation and signal can show a
difference up to about 10db.

The calibration setting affects what signal level the SM shows but don't
play with that as you can fry the radio as Paul found out.

  _  

From: "Brandon Yuchasz"  

Sender: "Af"  

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:04:43 +

To: 

ReplyTo: af@afmug.com 

Subject: [AFMUG] FSK 900mhz AP to SM should it read the same as a SM?

 

So I am trying to trouble shoot some APs. FSK 900mhz.

I have a P9 AP when I set it to run as an SM it reads a -80 but when I put
an actual SM in its place it reads -72. Should there be a difference between
these two units or do I just have a crap AP?

 

 

Best regards,

Brandon Yuchasz

GogebicRange.net

www.gogebicrange.net  

 

Re: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

[Sterling Jacobson]

Not bad! I agree.

My only complaint is their maintenance windows are near peak times of 10-11pm 
for some reason.

I’ve been caught by that a couple of times now where customer makes an online 
payment from their bed apparently and gets a weird error…

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

Last month I only paid 0.0206.  Low cost and great phone support.  I'm not sure 
it's perfect but damn they're close.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Re: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

[Josh Luthman]

Do you really feel 10 to 11 is peak time?  What time would you prefer?  I
know Powercode runs at 3am server time and I have to assume other billing
systems are in the early hours like that, too.

Ya there does seem to be an awful lot of maintenance windows the last
couple months.  I don't want to talk to anyone that's got Internet problems
while they're in bed...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

>  Not bad! I agree.
>
>
>
> My only complaint is their maintenance windows are near peak times of
> 10-11pm for some reason.
>
>
>
> I’ve been caught by that a couple of times now where customer makes an
> online payment from their bed apparently and gets a weird error…
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:49 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome
>
>
>
> Last month I only paid 0.0206.  Low cost and great phone support.  I'm
> not sure it's perfect but damn they're close.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I correlate the NAT security to a daughters bedroom.
Most fathers dont have an exterior door on their daughters bedroom
You dont just walk directly in, sure somebody can put a ladder to her
window (port forward) but by defaul there is a slight measure of security
because you have to come in the house door and traverse your way to her
bedroom
Now, its always best to have a firewall (you put the daughters bedroom at
the end of the hall past dads room)
Then to be super secure, you put in a Smith and Wesson IDS

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN 
wrote:

> Very Correct Glen.  Nat is not secure.  It’s like blending your door into
> the rest of your house.  The door is still there just a little harder to
> find.  But if there are no locks it’s still an unlocked door.
>
> Justin
>
> ---
> Justin Wilson 
> http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
> http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange
>
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
>
> I think we're having two different conversations here.
>
> I'm using NAT with a firewall. I don't think anyone is saying NAT by
> itself is secure.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Justin Wilson - MTIN 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>
> IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to remember ip
> addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend systems are going to become
> more and more critical to the ISPs who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, more
> and more managed routers are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  Those
> who support customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the
> same philosophy with V6 routers.  Full IPv6 support is severely lacking in
> many manufacturers.  So, now you have semi-compliant devices out there with
> buggy software doing weird things.  This becomes a troubleshooting
> nightmare for folks.To combat this I think we will see those deploying
> V6 sending out a “modem” or managed router that is the endpoint.   Right
> now, if you are running your CPE in router mode (which I encourage) your
> options for V6 support are very limited.  Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT
> won’t.  Cambium won’t.
>
> The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is just security
> by obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the typical home user it’s on
> the borderline of good enough.   As folks move away from nat to V6 you will
> also see performance increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a
> performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation tables and
> the like.
>
> V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc.  You simply need a firewall that
> understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP management software can
> help you. Some of them out there can export to DNS, can create iptables
> rules, etc.   With V6 the goal is to have more things automated on the
> backend.
>
> Justin
>
> ---
> Justin Wilson 
> http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
> http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange
>
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
> but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on their
> networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and spf
> I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
> We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit access
> to only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we could
> add all our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has
> subnets)
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to
>> get the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always
>> "how do you know you haven't had a security issue?".
>>
>> It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced
>> security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been
>> breached.  I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had
>> been pawned and they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for
>> the previous 3 years someone had full access remotely to that server and
>> had been gathering data from it on regular basis.  This server was behind
>> two layers of firewalls, host IDS, network IDS, anti-spyware, and
>> anti-virus.  Pretty extreme example but have seen it happen more than
>> once...
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:16 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases
>>
>> M

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Tyler Treat]

I love this.  It should be published in the book of Steveisms.

___
Mangled by my iPhone.
___
Tyler Treat
tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com
___


On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:26 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I correlate the NAT security to a daughters bedroom.
Most fathers dont have an exterior door on their daughters bedroom
You dont just walk directly in, sure somebody can put a ladder to her window 
(port forward) but by defaul there is a slight measure of security because you 
have to come in the house door and traverse your way to her bedroom
Now, its always best to have a firewall (you put the daughters bedroom at the 
end of the hall past dads room)
Then to be super secure, you put in a Smith and Wesson IDS

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN 
mailto:li...@mtin.net>> wrote:
Very Correct Glen.  Nat is not secure.  It’s like blending your door into the 
rest of your house.  The door is still there just a little harder to find.  But 
if there are no locks it’s still an unlocked door.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson mailto:j...@mtin.net>>
http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange

On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Glen Waldrop 
mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net>> wrote:

I think we're having two different conversations here.

I'm using NAT with a firewall. I don't think anyone is saying NAT by itself is 
secure.


- Original Message -
From: Justin Wilson - MTIN
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to remember ip 
addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend systems are going to become more 
and more critical to the ISPs who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, more and more 
managed routers are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  Those who support 
customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the same philosophy 
with V6 routers.  Full IPv6 support is severely lacking in many manufacturers.  
So, now you have semi-compliant devices out there with buggy software doing 
weird things.  This becomes a troubleshooting nightmare for folks.To combat 
this I think we will see those deploying V6 sending out a “modem” or managed 
router that is the endpoint.   Right now, if you are running your CPE in router 
mode (which I encourage) your options for V6 support are very limited.  
Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT won’t.  Cambium won’t.

The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is just security by 
obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the typical home user it’s on the 
borderline of good enough.   As folks move away from nat to V6 you will also 
see performance increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a 
performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation tables and the 
like.

V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc.  You simply need a firewall that 
understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP management software can help 
you. Some of them out there can export to DNS, can create iptables rules, etc.  
 With V6 the goal is to have more things automated on the backend.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson mailto:j...@mtin.net>>
http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – 
Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about 
xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – 
Internet Exchange

On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on their networks 
that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and spf
I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit access to 
only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we could add all 
our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has subnets)

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart 
mailto:p...@paulstewart.org>> wrote:
One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I used to get the 
same argument from a former co-worker and my question was always "how do you 
know you haven't had a security issue?".

It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty advanced 
security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been breached.  
I showed someone a few years ago that their Windows server had been pawned and 
they didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the previous 3 years 
someone had full access remotely to

[AFMUG] Nissan Leaf getting an upgrade

[Rory Conaway]

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/61851/nissan-leaf-to-get-new-battery-tech-improved-range-in-midlife-update

We might have a lot of used batteries running around soon.

Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the 
triumph of principles." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Glen Waldrop]

Agreed.

Awesome.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Tyler Treat 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


  I love this.  It should be published in the book of Steveisms.   


  ___
  Mangled by my iPhone.
  ___
  Tyler Treat
  tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com
  ___



  On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:26 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:


I correlate the NAT security to a daughters bedroom. 
Most fathers dont have an exterior door on their daughters bedroom
You dont just walk directly in, sure somebody can put a ladder to her 
window (port forward) but by defaul there is a slight measure of security 
because you have to come in the house door and traverse your way to her bedroom
Now, its always best to have a firewall (you put the daughters bedroom at 
the end of the hall past dads room)
Then to be super secure, you put in a Smith and Wesson IDS


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN  
wrote:

  Very Correct Glen.  Nat is not secure.  It’s like blending your door into 
the rest of your house.  The door is still there just a little harder to find.  
But if there are no locks it’s still an unlocked door. 


  Justin


  ---
  Justin Wilson 
  http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
  http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
  http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange 


On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Glen Waldrop  
wrote:


I think we're having two different conversations here.

I'm using NAT with a firewall. I don't think anyone is saying NAT by 
itself is secure.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Justin Wilson - MTIN
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases


  IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to 
remember ip addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend systems are going to 
become more and more critical to the ISPs who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, 
more and more managed routers are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  
Those who support customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the 
same philosophy with V6 routers.  Full IPv6 support is severely lacking in many 
manufacturers.  So, now you have semi-compliant devices out there with buggy 
software doing weird things.  This becomes a troubleshooting nightmare for 
folks.To combat this I think we will see those deploying V6 sending out a 
“modem” or managed router that is the endpoint.   Right now, if you are running 
your CPE in router mode (which I encourage) your options for V6 support are 
very limited.  Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT won’t.  Cambium won’t.  



  The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is just 
security by obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the typical home user 
it’s on the borderline of good enough.   As folks move away from nat to V6 you 
will also see performance increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a 
performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation tables and the 
like.


  V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc.  You simply need a firewall 
that understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP management software can 
help you. Some of them out there can export to DNS, can create iptables rules, 
etc.   With V6 the goal is to have more things automated on the backend.


  Justin


  ---
  Justin Wilson 
  http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
  http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
  http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange 


On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:


I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT 
but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on 
their networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet reverse DNS and 
spf
I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that limit 
access to only coming from our office firewall, nothing else, I suppose we 
could add all our workstations to that policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has 
subnets) 


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul Stewart 
 wrote:

  One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet".  I 
used to get the same argument from a former co-worker and my question was 
always "how do you know you haven't had a security issue?".

  It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some pretty 
advanced security *in* your network, then most folks don' know they have been 
br

Re: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

[Brian Young]

All, thank you for the comments.  We actually have chosen those times because 
we have years of day of month and time of day trends, and those times are the 
lowest.

Also remember many of the maintenance times we call are planned to be non 
service impacting.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Jul 1, 2015 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
Do you really feel 10 to 11 is peak time?  What time would you prefer?  I know 
Powercode runs at 3am server time and I have to assume other billing systems 
are in the early hours like that, too.

Ya there does seem to be an awful lot of maintenance windows the last couple 
months.  I don't want to talk to anyone that's got Internet problems while 
they're in bed...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
Not bad! I agree.

My only complaint is their maintenance windows are near peak times of 10-11pm 
for some reason.

I’ve been caught by that a couple of times now where customer makes an online 
payment from their bed apparently and gets a weird error…

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

Last month I only paid 0.0206.  Low cost and great phone support.  I'm not sure 
it's perfect but damn they're close.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586.

Re: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

[D. Ryan Spott]

Brian,

Perhaps A/B changes behind your load balancers?

In my day job I work for a largish book store online. :) They might make 
changes in that fashion.


ryan

On 7/1/15 11:22 AM, Brian Young wrote:

All, thank you for the comments.  We actually have chosen those times because 
we have years of day of month and time of day trends, and those times are the 
lowest.

Also remember many of the maintenance times we call are planned to be non 
service impacting.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Jul 1, 2015 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
Do you really feel 10 to 11 is peak time?  What time would you prefer?  I know 
Powercode runs at 3am server time and I have to assume other billing systems 
are in the early hours like that, too.

Ya there does seem to be an awful lot of maintenance windows the last couple 
months.  I don't want to talk to anyone that's got Internet problems while 
they're in bed...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
Not bad! I agree.

My only complaint is their maintenance windows are near peak times of 10-11pm 
for some reason.

I’ve been caught by that a couple of times now where customer makes an online 
payment from their bed apparently and gets a weird error…

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPPay, you're awesome

Last month I only paid 0.0206.  Low cost and great phone support.  I'm not sure 
it's perfect but damn they're close.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586.



--
D. Ryan Spott | NGC457, llc
broadband | telco | colo | communities
PO Box 1734 Sultan, WA 98294
425-939-0047

[AFMUG] ROW

[Adam Moffett]

We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural 
areas.  I will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a 
spot for my stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any 
other problems?  Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop 
I killed?  What about lost revenue from the space in his field that 
becomes unusable because of the pole?


I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it 
would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that 
moving the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we 
accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no 
recourse as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for 
being a jerk about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?

[AFMUG] WTB 5.4 430 SM's

[Sam Lambie]

Hey all,

I am looking for some SM's. 10 mbps is fine. Let me know if you have any to
let go.

thanks
Sam

-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com 

Re: [AFMUG] WTB 5.4 430 SM's

[Gino Villarini]

how many?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Sam Lambie  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I am looking for some SM's. 10 mbps is fine. Let me know if you have any
> to let go.
>
> thanks
> Sam
>
> --
> --
> *Sam Lambie*
> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
> 575-758-7598 Office
> www.Taosnet.com 
>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB 5.4 430 SM's

[Sam Lambie]

10-15? Or for a good price, 25.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> how many?
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Sam Lambie  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I am looking for some SM's. 10 mbps is fine. Let me know if you have any
>> to let go.
>>
>> thanks
>> Sam
>>
>> --
>> --
>> *Sam Lambie*
>> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
>> 575-758-7598 Office
>> www.Taosnet.com 
>>
>
>


-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com 

[AFMUG] OFFLIST WTB 5.4 430 SM's

[Paul McCall]

Sam,

We have 28 pieces in stock.  If you take them all, $ 50 each   10Mbit

Paul, PDMNet

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lambie
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WTB 5.4 430 SM's

10-15? Or for a good price, 25.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gino Villarini 
mailto:ginovi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
how many?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Sam Lambie 
mailto:samtaos...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hey all,
I am looking for some SM's. 10 mbps is fine. Let me know if you have any to let 
go.
thanks
Sam

--
--
Sam Lambie
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com




--
--
Sam Lambie
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com

Re: [AFMUG] OFFLIST WTB 5.4 430 SM's

[Paul McCall]

U.. Paul, that wasn’t offlist, LOL

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:55 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OFFLIST WTB 5.4 430 SM's

Sam,

We have 28 pieces in stock.  If you take them all, $ 50 each   10Mbit

Paul, PDMNet

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lambie
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WTB 5.4 430 SM's

10-15? Or for a good price, 25.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gino Villarini 
mailto:ginovi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
how many?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Sam Lambie 
mailto:samtaos...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hey all,
I am looking for some SM's. 10 mbps is fine. Let me know if you have any to let 
go.
thanks
Sam

--
--
Sam Lambie
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com




--
--
Sam Lambie
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com

Re: [AFMUG] Municipal conduit agreement

[Hass, Douglas A.]

Don't have the city's lawyer draft the agreement.  The city's lawyer works for 
the city, and isn't going to be looking out for your best interests.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 7:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Municipal conduit agreement

You should get a lawyer and have them draft something.

Or just ask the city lawyer to draft the agreement.

Sometimes you can avoid paying legal fees if they do it for you :)

Also, it should include the rights to visit and repair/upkeep the fiber you use 
in their conduit.

Usually it involves placing two boxes instead of one at the ends of the 
conduit, one is the cities, and the other yours.
You either pull your fiber direct off a splice case from your box, or you 
install drop to their box and splice case (once the fiber is installed).

Just some thoughts...

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rob Genovesi
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 6:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Municipal conduit agreement

Hi all,

Does anyone have a boilerplate/sample agreement for use of municipal conduit?  
I'm looking specifically for cases where the agreement is for empty conduit (we 
put in our own fiber).

We have a small town that has about 8 blocks of conduit, so it shouldn't need 
be anything too elaborate.

Thanks in advance,

Rob Genovesi
Coastside.Net
650-712-5900
Doug Hass
Associate
312.786.6502

Franczek Radelet P.C.

300 South Wacker Drive
Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
312.986.0300 - Main
312.986.9192 - Fax
www.franczek.com

Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue 
Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal 
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not 
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) 
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing 
or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. 

For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. 
The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be 
confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named 
recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or 
any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. 

Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the 
environment before printing this email 

[AFMUG] Routers as switches

[Nate Burke]

I've been running into some cases recently, usually when switching 
people off of Satellite connections, that their 'Insert brand here' 
router is setup in bridge mode.  They have the Internet cable plugged 
into the WAN Port of the router, but it's just acting as a switch.  Is 
this a standard config for Satellite installs?


Nate

Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

[Bill Prince]

and bars on the windows?

bp


On 7/1/2015 10:26 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

I correlate the NAT security to a daughters bedroom.
Most fathers dont have an exterior door on their daughters bedroom
You dont just walk directly in, sure somebody can put a ladder to her 
window (port forward) but by defaul there is a slight measure of 
security because you have to come in the house door and traverse your 
way to her bedroom
Now, its always best to have a firewall (you put the daughters bedroom 
at the end of the hall past dads room)

Then to be super secure, you put in a Smith and Wesson IDS

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN > wrote:


Very Correct Glen.  Nat is not secure.  It’s like blending your
door into the rest of your house.  The door is still there just a
little harder to find.  But if there are no locks it’s still an
unlocked door.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson mailto:j...@mtin.net>>
http://www.mtin.net  Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange


On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Glen Waldrop mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net>> wrote:

I think we're having two different conversations here.

I'm using NAT with a firewall. I don't think anyone is saying NAT
by itself is secure.

- Original Message -
*From:*Justin Wilson - MTIN 
*To:*af@afmug.com 
*Sent:*Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:01 AM
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases

IPV6 is very DNS orientated.  There is no way you are going to
remember ip addresses like you do in V4.  DNS and backend
systems are going to become more and more critical to the ISPs
who are providing V6.  Also, IMHO, more and more managed routers
are going to be deployed as folks go to V6.  Those who support
customer owned routers will be overwhelmed if they follow the
same philosophy with V6 routers. Full IPv6 support is severely
lacking in many manufacturers.  So, now you have semi-compliant
devices out there with buggy software doing weird things.  This
becomes a troubleshooting nightmare for folks.To combat this
I think we will see those deploying V6 sending out a “modem” or
managed router that is the endpoint.   Right now, if you are
running your CPE in router mode (which I encourage) your options
for V6 support are very limited.  Mikrotik will do this.  UBNT
won’t.  Cambium won’t.

The false sense of security folks have fallen into is Nat is
just security by obscurity.  It’s not really security.  For the
typical home user it’s on the borderline of good enough.   As
folks move away from nat to V6 you will also see performance
increases on higher bandwidth circuits.  Nat causes a
performance hit.  The router has to keep track of translation
tables and the like.

V6 still travels over port 80, 110,etc. You simply need a
firewall that understands V6 and away you go.  This is where IP
management software can help you. Some of them out there can
export to DNS, can create iptables rules, etc.   With V6 the
goal is to have more things automated on the backend.

Justin

---
Justin Wilson mailto:j...@mtin.net>>
http://www.mtin.net   Managed Services –
xISP Solutions – Data Centers
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com
 Podcast about xISP topics
http://www.midwest-ix.com  Peering –
Transit – Internet Exchange


On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

I guess Im stuck in the limited space mindset with NAT
but many of our clients have multiple mail serverish devices on
their networks that all need to present as the same IP to meet
reverse DNS and spf
I dont now whether my mindest on that is efficient or lazy
We have alot of firewall access policies on our clients that
limit access to only coming from our office firewall, nothing
else, I suppose we could add all our workstations to that
policy, or a subnet ( I assume ip6 has subnets)

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paul
Stewartmailto:p...@paulstewart.org>>wrote:
One other comment around "haven't had a security issue yet". 
I used to get the same argument from a former co-worker and my

question was always "how do you know you haven't had a
security issue?".

It seems like a loaded question but unless you have some
pretty advanced security *in* your network, then most folks
don' know they have been breached.  I showed someone a few
years ago that their Windows server had been pawned and they
didn't believe me at first - then I showed that for the
previous 3 years someon

Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches

[Bill Prince]

Some routers (specifically Apple AirPorts) will default to bridge mode 
if they detect that they are being NATted. If you switch them to router 
w/NAT, they will complain about double NAT.


bp


On 7/1/2015 2:16 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
I've been running into some cases recently, usually when switching 
people off of Satellite connections, that their 'Insert brand here' 
router is setup in bridge mode.  They have the Internet cable plugged 
into the WAN Port of the router, but it's just acting as a switch.  Is 
this a standard config for Satellite installs?


Nate

Re: [AFMUG] [SPAM?] Re: Routers as switches

[SmarterBroadband]

We also see Netgear doing this now.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 2:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [SPAM?] Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches

Some routers (specifically Apple AirPorts) will default to bridge mode if
they detect that they are being NATted. If you switch them to router w/NAT,
they will complain about double NAT.

bp


On 7/1/2015 2:16 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
> I've been running into some cases recently, usually when switching 
> people off of Satellite connections, that their 'Insert brand here'
> router is setup in bridge mode.  They have the Internet cable plugged 
> into the WAN Port of the router, but it's just acting as a switch.  Is 
> this a standard config for Satellite installs?
>
> Nate

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Chuck Hogg]

He could always complain to the PUC/PSC.

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural areas.
> I will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my
> stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other problems?
> Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed?  What
> about lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable
> because of the pole?
>
> I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it
> would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that moving
> the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we
> accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no
> recourse as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for
> being a jerk about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?
>
>

[AFMUG] Fwd: Finally done!😄

[Josh Luthman]

That tower mount list is waaay too big.  It fills almost 25% of my screen...

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

-- Forwarded message --
From: Chuck McCown 
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM
Subject: Finally done!😄
To: j...@imaginenetworksllc.com


 *I finally got the catalog done!*
   View this email in your browser


The quick way to load test a new pole mount!
  Finally got the catalog finished. Check out all our new
tower mounts.
  Chuck McCown says Hi!   We have added a bunch of new tower mounting
product to allow you to mount almost anything to any tower or pole.  And I
got the web site finally cleaned up too.  WWW.MCCOWNTECH.COM
MTC formerly known as  (WB Manfacturing)

Please check out the new catalog: http://bit.ly/1eYzD9V


The old WB Manufacturing site is still there, same site actually but the
MTC name has been around for a long time and is the underlying IP holder
for all the products.  Wireless Beehive is no longer connected with us so
we decided to use the company name we started with.

The new extra large chain mount.

Put a big dish on a small tower.  Works on sheet metal towers too.
*Copyright © 2015 *|McCown Technology Corporation|*,
All rights reserved.*

*Our mailing address is:*
www.afmug.com


unsubscribe from this list

update subscription preferences









   This email was sent to j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
*why did I get this?*

unsubscribe from this list

update subscription preferences

McCown Technology Corporation · 8400 North SR 36 · Lake Point, UT 84074 ·
USA

[image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp]

Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches

[Mike Hammett]

I wish more did that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke"  
To: "Animal Farm"  
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 4:16:06 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Routers as switches 

I've been running into some cases recently, usually when switching 
people off of Satellite connections, that their 'Insert brand here' 
router is setup in bridge mode. They have the Internet cable plugged 
into the WAN Port of the router, but it's just acting as a switch. Is 
this a standard config for Satellite installs? 

Nate 

Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

[Brett A Mansfield]

Or the title of a bad porno

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Brett A Mansfield  
> wrote:
> 
> I don't know. The taming of the wild pole sounds like something that would be 
> outlawed. It sounds too much like a sex act.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, cstann...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> In Utah, the taming of the wild pole is about the only exhaustive physical 
>> activity that is legal.
>> From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
>> Sender: "Af" 
>> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 22:11:57 +
>> To: 
>> ReplyTo: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day
>> 
>>  
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches

[Glen Waldrop]

I do that for anyone running a Belkin or Netgear.

Crap routers.

The old Linksys/Cisco were fine. Not so sure about the new Linksys yet. Not 
impressed so far.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mike Hammett 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches


  I wish more did that.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



--

  From: "Nate Burke" 
  To: "Animal Farm" 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 4:16:06 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] Routers as switches

  I've been running into some cases recently, usually when switching 
  people off of Satellite connections, that their 'Insert brand here' 
  router is setup in bridge mode.  They have the Internet cable plugged 
  into the WAN Port of the router, but it's just acting as a switch.  Is 
  this a standard config for Satellite installs?

  Nate

Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches

[Josh Luthman]

New Linksys = Belkin.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

>  I do that for anyone running a Belkin or Netgear.
>
> Crap routers.
>
> The old Linksys/Cisco were fine. Not so sure about the new Linksys yet.
> Not impressed so far.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routers as switches
>
> I wish more did that.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Nate Burke" 
> *To: *"Animal Farm" 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 1, 2015 4:16:06 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Routers as switches
>
> I've been running into some cases recently, usually when switching
> people off of Satellite connections, that their 'Insert brand here'
> router is setup in bridge mode.  They have the Internet cable plugged
> into the WAN Port of the router, but it's just acting as a switch.  Is
> this a standard config for Satellite installs?
>
> Nate
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Fwd: Finally done!😄

[Matt]

http://www.mccowntech.com/products.cfm?PID=90&Cat=

Some images on page and pdf are broken.



>
> That tower mount list is waaay too big.  It fills almost 25% of my screen...
>

Re: [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: private ipv4 sale / leases

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 14:00 +, Glen Waldrop wrote:
> Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public.
> 
> That is my primary argument with IPv6.

And NAT provides some level of security?  I think you are
overestimating the benefit of NAT.  Also, with about 5 rules in a
router, I can 100% mimic the "benefit" of NAT with a public IPv6 block.
 If you were to venture a guess, what percentage of the bots out there
now (part of larger botnets) run with a public vs NAT IP?  I'd venture
to say that this would be a mid to high 90s.



-- 
Butch Evans
Training and Support for WISPs
702-537-0979
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Chris Fabien]

Laws may vary by state but I know farmers in michigan that have been
reimbursed for crop damage due to pipeline work, powerline work etc. May be
a goodwill thing and not required. I'd ask at your local grain elevator.
They could also provide reasonable value information.
On Jul 1, 2015 2:48 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural areas.
> I will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my
> stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other problems?
> Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed?  What
> about lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable
> because of the pole?
>
> I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it
> would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that moving
> the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we
> accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no
> recourse as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for
> being a jerk about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Fwd: Finally done!😄

[Chuck McCown]

We have lots of fun stuff now.  
Do you want a hard copy?

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:55 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Fwd: Finally done!😄

That tower mount list is waaay too big.  It fills almost 25% of my screen...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

-- Forwarded message --
From: Chuck McCown 
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM
Subject: Finally done!😄
To: j...@imaginenetworksllc.com


  I finally got the catalog done!
 
  View this email in your browser  
   
 
   

  The quick way to load test a new pole mount!
 
   
 
   
 
   
  Finally got the catalog finished.
  Check out all our new tower mounts.

   
  Chuck McCown says Hi! 
   
  We have added a bunch of new tower mounting 
product to allow you to mount almost anything to any tower or pole.  And I got 
the web site finally cleaned up too.  WWW.MCCOWNTECH.COM
  MTC formerly known as  (WB Manfacturing)

  Please check out the new catalog: 
http://bit.ly/1eYzD9V

  The old WB Manufacturing site is still there, 
same site actually but the MTC name has been around for a long time and is the 
underlying IP holder for all the products.  Wireless Beehive is no longer 
connected with us so we decided to use the company name we started with.  
   
 
   
  
The new extra large chain mount.
 
 
   
   
Put a big dish on a small tower.  Works on 
sheet metal towers too.
 
 
   
 
   
 
   
  Copyright © 2015 *|McCown Technology 
Corporation|*, All rights reserved.

  Our mailing address is:
  www.afmug.com

  unsubscribe from this listupdate subscription 
preferences 

 
   
 
   
 







This email was sent to j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
why did I get this?unsubscribe from this listupdate 
subscription preferences 
McCown Technology Corporation · 8400 North SR 36 · Lake Point, UT 
84074 · USA 

  
 

Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

[Chuck McCown]

Only in Eagle Mountain.

From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 4:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

I don't know. The taming of the wild pole sounds like something that would be 
outlawed. It sounds too much like a sex act.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, cstann...@gmail.com wrote:


  In Utah, the taming of the wild pole is about the only exhaustive physical 
activity that is legal.

--

  From: "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
  Sender: "Af"  
  Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 22:11:57 +
  To: 
  ReplyTo: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day


  

Re: [AFMUG] Fwd: Finally done!😄

[Josh Luthman]

I'd love one!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jul 1, 2015 7:33 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

>   We have lots of fun stuff now.
> Do you want a hard copy?
>
>  *From:* Josh Luthman 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:55 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Fwd: Finally done!😄
>
>  That tower mount list is waaay too big.  It fills almost 25% of my
> screen...
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Chuck McCown 
> Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM
> Subject: Finally done!😄
> To: j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
>
>
>  *I finally got the catalog done!*
>   View this email in your browser
> 
>
> The quick way to load test a new pole mount!
> Finally got the catalog finished. Check out all our new tower
> mounts.
>   Chuck McCown says Hi!We have added a bunch of new tower mounting
> product to allow you to mount almost anything to any tower or pole.  And I
> got the web site finally cleaned up too.  WWW.MCCOWNTECH.COM
> MTC formerly known as  (WB Manfacturing)
>
> Please check out the new catalog: http://bit.ly/1eYzD9V
> 
>
> The old WB Manufacturing site is still there, same site actually but the
> MTC name has been around for a long time and is the underlying IP holder
> for all the products.  Wireless Beehive is no longer connected with us so
> we decided to use the company name we started with.
>
> The new extra large chain mount.
>
> Put a big dish on a small tower.  Works on sheet metal towers too.
>*Copyright © 2015 *|McCown Technology Corporation|*, All
> rights reserved.*
>
> *Our mailing address is:*
> www.afmug.com
> 
>
> unsubscribe from this list
> 
> update subscription preferences
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This email was sent to j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
> *why did I get this?*
> 
> unsubscribe from this list
> 
> update subscription preferences
> 
> McCown Technology Corporation · 8400 North SR 36 · Lake Point, UT 84074 ·
> USA
>
> [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp]
> 
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

[Ken Hohhof]

A bad Polish porno.

From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

Or the title of a bad porno

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Brett A Mansfield  
wrote:


  I don't know. The taming of the wild pole sounds like something that would be 
outlawed. It sounds too much like a sex act.

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, cstann...@gmail.com wrote:


In Utah, the taming of the wild pole is about the only exhaustive physical 
activity that is legal.



From: "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
Sender: "Af"  
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 22:11:57 +
To: 
ReplyTo: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

[Chuck McCown]

Sex should not include splinters.

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

A bad Polish porno.

From: Brett A Mansfield 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

Or the title of a bad porno

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Brett A Mansfield  
wrote:


  I don't know. The taming of the wild pole sounds like something that would be 
outlawed. It sounds too much like a sex act.

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, cstann...@gmail.com wrote:


In Utah, the taming of the wild pole is about the only exhaustive physical 
activity that is legal.



From: "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
Sender: "Af"  
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 22:11:57 +
To: 
ReplyTo: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] hah - that made my day

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Matt]

> We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural areas.  I
> will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my
> stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other problems?
> Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed?  What about
> lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable because of
> the pole?

Are they actually supposed to be planting that close to the road in the ROW?

> I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it
> would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that moving
> the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we
> accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no recourse
> as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for being a jerk
> about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Chuck Hogg]

They are allowed under the assumption that it could be destroyed.
Pipelines typically do not use State/County ROW.  They don't ever want to
have to move them.  They paid $8/ft for a pipeline going in here for
easement access on a project next to our fiber build.  Homeowners are
pissed they can't get money from us because we are using the State ROW.

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Matt  wrote:

> > We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural
> areas.  I
> > will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my
> > stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other
> problems?
> > Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed?  What
> about
> > lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable because of
> > the pole?
>
> Are they actually supposed to be planting that close to the road in the
> ROW?
>
> > I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it
> > would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that
> moving
> > the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we
> > accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no
> recourse
> > as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for being a
> jerk
> > about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Mike Hammett]

Here they aren't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:14:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ROW 

> We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural areas. I 
> will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my 
> stake. Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other problems? 
> Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed? What about 
> lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable because of 
> the pole? 

Are they actually supposed to be planting that close to the road in the ROW? 

> I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it 
> would ruin his view. He was nice about it, and it so happened that moving 
> the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we 
> accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no recourse 
> as long as I'm still in the ROW, right? My only liability for being a jerk 
> about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right? 

Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8

[Daniel White]

I’ll never forget the day I was in Cupertino in one of Apple’s buildings are 
saw public IP addresses assigned to things like printers.



Blew my mind.



Daniel White

(303) 746-3590



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:40 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 44.0.0.0/8



Not sure about Daimler, but Ford does... I'm sure there are a lot worse wastes 
of IPs than the HAMs.



On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote:

Doesn't Ford and Daimler have a /8?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jul 1, 2015 12:14 AM, "TJ Trout" mailto:t...@voltbb.com> > 
wrote:

speaking as a extra class amateur radio operstor, does anyone else think it's 
excessive that arpa net or whatever has a /8 issued to them? 16 million some 
precious ipv4 for "testing" purposes? I'm always pro ham radio rights, but 
seriously ?





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Mike Hammett]

A pipeline is a hell of a lot more disruptive than a plow or drill. 

Around here they can plant over any ROW that's not road and the utility 
reimburses for crop damage. ROW would probably be a lot more expensive if it 
didn't cover crop damage. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Chuck Hogg"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:21:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ROW 


They are allowed under the assumption that it could be destroyed. Pipelines 
typically do not use State/County ROW. They don't ever want to have to move 
them. They paid $8/ft for a pipeline going in here for easement access on a 
project next to our fiber build. Homeowners are pissed they can't get money 
from us because we are using the State ROW. 



Regards, 
Chuck 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Matt < matt.mailingli...@gmail.com > wrote: 


> We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural areas. I 
> will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my 
> stake. Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other problems? 
> Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed? What about 
> lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable because of 
> the pole? 

Are they actually supposed to be planting that close to the road in the ROW? 



> I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it 
> would ruin his view. He was nice about it, and it so happened that moving 
> the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we 
> accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no recourse 
> as long as I'm still in the ROW, right? My only liability for being a jerk 
> about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right? 

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Chuck Hogg]

You're probably talking about the easements.  Those are different.  Most
state and county (for roads) ROW do not allow for any type of encroachment
(farming or other) without permit or permission.  The state/county ROW is
not owned by the home/farmer.  Planting in it will not provide for
reimbursement in most states, because by law you are only allowed to plant
on your property, around here the law on deeded property says something to
the effect of, *"beginning at a point 30' from the centerline of the road
at a marker at GPS location XYZ.."*.  I found docs in the Illinois manual
that talks about renting the ROW for crops, but I doubt most pay for that.

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> A pipeline is a hell of a lot more disruptive than a plow or drill.
>
> Around here they can plant over any ROW that's not road and the utility
> reimburses for crop damage. ROW would probably be a lot more expensive if
> it didn't cover crop damage.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Chuck Hogg" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:21:11 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] ROW
>
> They are allowed under the assumption that it could be destroyed.
> Pipelines typically do not use State/County ROW.  They don't ever want to
> have to move them.  They paid $8/ft for a pipeline going in here for
> easement access on a project next to our fiber build.  Homeowners are
> pissed they can't get money from us because we are using the State ROW.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Matt  wrote:
>
>> > We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural
>> areas.  I
>> > will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for
>> my
>> > stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other
>> problems?
>> > Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed?  What
>> about
>> > lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable because
>> of
>> > the pole?
>>
>> Are they actually supposed to be planting that close to the road in the
>> ROW?
>>
>> > I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it
>> > would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that
>> moving
>> > the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we
>> > accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no
>> recourse
>> > as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for being a
>> jerk
>> > about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ROW

[Chuck McCown]

That is why horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is the only way to go.

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 6:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ROW

A pipeline is a hell of a lot more disruptive than a plow or drill.

Around here they can plant over any ROW that's not road and the utility 
reimburses for crop damage. ROW would probably be a lot more expensive if it 
didn't cover crop damage.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com





From: "Chuck Hogg" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:21:11 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ROW


They are allowed under the assumption that it could be destroyed.  Pipelines 
typically do not use State/County ROW.  They don't ever want to have to move 
them.  They paid $8/ft for a pipeline going in here for easement access on a 
project next to our fiber build.  Homeowners are pissed they can't get money 
from us because we are using the State ROW.

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Matt  wrote:

  > We're marking pole locations and some of them are in agricultural areas.  I
  > will feel like a vandal when I whack down some corn to make a spot for my
  > stake.  Aside from my feelings, am I going to run into any other problems?
  > Can the farmer come after me for the $10 worth of crop I killed?  What about
  > lost revenue from the space in his field that becomes unusable because of
  > the pole?

  Are they actually supposed to be planting that close to the road in the ROW?


  > I also had a homeowner complain about a pole we were marking because it
  > would ruin his view.  He was nice about it, and it so happened that moving
  > the spot to the corner of the property didn't hurt us any, so we
  > accommodated himif I chose to stick to my first spot, he has no recourse
  > as long as I'm still in the ROW, right?  My only liability for being a jerk
  > about it would be that I have to feel like a jerk, right?