Re: [AFMUG] Sprint carrier contact

[Erich Kaiser]

Sorry I meant Sprint.


Erich Kaiser
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Erich Kaiser 
wrote:

> Anyone have a good Spring Carrier contact?
>
>
> Erich Kaiser
> North Central Tower
> er...@northcentraltower.com
> Office: 630-621-4804
> Cell: 630-777-9291
>
>

[AFMUG] Sprint carrier contact

[Erich Kaiser]

Anyone have a good Spring Carrier contact?


Erich Kaiser
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

I could also argue here that ipv4 pricing is still continuing to rise, and
will do so for the foreseeable future. Buying it now will result in a
valuable resource as long as you don't wait too long to sell it :)

On Aug 1, 2016 6:00 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> Yeah this seems so... - 2001 creating a WISP using a single cable modem-
> type of doing things.
>
> I don’t want to use NAT64 to squish a V6 packet on the V4 internet, I want
> it to automagically tunnel V4 traffic from the customer to the NAT64
> gateway where it can go on its merry way if there is no V6 destination
> address for the other end.  Same thing but different words.
>
> Really, I want to stop having to acquire more V4 addresses.  That is truly
> the ONLY goal.
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account) 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 01, 2016 4:54 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Let me see if I can  help the 'light go on'.
>
> Forget IPv6 for a second.
>
> You assign all of your customers addresses from 100.64.0.0/10, then use a
> standard, garden variety (but preferably at least somewhat carrier grade)
> NAT box to NAT them to the internet.  The customers computers talk IPv4,
> the NAT box does IPv4 to IPv4 NAT (using addresses you already have) and
> everything is happy.   This is dirt cheap to do and requires very little
> existing infrastructure change.
>
> You can then add non-NATed IPv6 on top of this so each customer also gets
> a new shiny IPv6 address which isn't NAT'ed.
>
> NAT64 is expensive and can be buggy since you're trying to squish a heavy
> IPV6 packet into the IPV4 internet.  This avoids this problem.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Exactly, this is what we need to solve.  No more new V4 addresses and
>> only V6 going forward.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
>>> routable
>>> V4 address.
>>> We will be out of addresses very soon.
>>>
>>
>> With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
>> the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
>> Unless there is something I do not know here?
>>
>> No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
>> hope you keep us all posted.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>>
>>> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
>>> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
>>> what most cellphones are doing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>

 Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

 From: Sterling Jacobson
 Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


 Why use NAT64 again?



 I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no
 NAT
 required.



 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
 Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



 Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.
 Takes
 a
 pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
 carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Then the term you're looking for is probably '4 over 6' or 'lightweight 4
over 6' or maybe 'Dual-Stack Light'.

The question then becomes, what protocols can your CPE do?

The 'real dual stack' solution that I described seems the cleanest and
easiest right now unless your CPE can handle some sort of tunneling
protocol like 4 over 6.

-forrest


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Yeah this seems so... - 2001 creating a WISP using a single cable modem-
> type of doing things.
>
> I don’t want to use NAT64 to squish a V6 packet on the V4 internet, I want
> it to automagically tunnel V4 traffic from the customer to the NAT64
> gateway where it can go on its merry way if there is no V6 destination
> address for the other end.  Same thing but different words.
>
> Really, I want to stop having to acquire more V4 addresses.  That is truly
> the ONLY goal.
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account) 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 01, 2016 4:54 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Let me see if I can  help the 'light go on'.
>
> Forget IPv6 for a second.
>
> You assign all of your customers addresses from 100.64.0.0/10, then use a
> standard, garden variety (but preferably at least somewhat carrier grade)
> NAT box to NAT them to the internet.  The customers computers talk IPv4,
> the NAT box does IPv4 to IPv4 NAT (using addresses you already have) and
> everything is happy.   This is dirt cheap to do and requires very little
> existing infrastructure change.
>
> You can then add non-NATed IPv6 on top of this so each customer also gets
> a new shiny IPv6 address which isn't NAT'ed.
>
> NAT64 is expensive and can be buggy since you're trying to squish a heavy
> IPV6 packet into the IPV4 internet.  This avoids this problem.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Exactly, this is what we need to solve.  No more new V4 addresses and
>> only V6 going forward.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
>>> routable
>>> V4 address.
>>> We will be out of addresses very soon.
>>>
>>
>> With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
>> the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
>> Unless there is something I do not know here?
>>
>> No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
>> hope you keep us all posted.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>>
>>> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
>>> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
>>> what most cellphones are doing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>

 Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

 From: Sterling Jacobson
 Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


 Why use NAT64 again?



 I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no
 NAT
 required.



 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
 Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



 Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.
 Takes
 a
 pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
 carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

Exactly.

One of the problems people have with traditional NAT is tracking down
people who did "naughty things", or customers who have malware / worms /
are exploited.​ With regular NAT, trying to log each connection is a
nightmare.

If you do port block allocation, you're assigning a customer to a set of
port ranges for a given IP that they will always use. This massively
simplifies logging and decreases the time to track down issues.

Glancing over the Cisco CGN docs, PBA works in blocks of 8, so you could
assign a customer 256 ports for a given IP to NAT behind that they will
always use. Next customer gets the next 256 ports, etc. 65535 ports
(depends slightly on the OS), so assuming you leave ~100-50 ports unused
for misc things, you can still cram in about 250 customers per IP, safely.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Let me see if I can  help the 'light go on'.
>
> Forget IPv6 for a second.
>
> You assign all of your customers addresses from 100.64.0.0/10, then use a
> standard, garden variety (but preferably at least somewhat carrier grade)
> NAT box to NAT them to the internet.  The customers computers talk IPv4,
> the NAT box does IPv4 to IPv4 NAT (using addresses you already have) and
> everything is happy.   This is dirt cheap to do and requires very little
> existing infrastructure change.
>
> You can then add non-NATed IPv6 on top of this so each customer also gets
> a new shiny IPv6 address which isn't NAT'ed.
>
> NAT64 is expensive and can be buggy since you're trying to squish a heavy
> IPV6 packet into the IPV4 internet.  This avoids this problem.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Exactly, this is what we need to solve.  No more new V4 addresses and
>> only V6 going forward.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
>>> routable
>>> V4 address.
>>> We will be out of addresses very soon.
>>>
>>
>> With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
>> the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
>> Unless there is something I do not know here?
>>
>> No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
>> hope you keep us all posted.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Matt
>>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>>
>>> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
>>> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
>>> what most cellphones are doing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>

 Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

 From: Sterling Jacobson
 Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


 Why use NAT64 again?



 I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no
 NAT
 required.



 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
 Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



 Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.
 Takes
 a
 pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
 carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

Yeah this seems so... - 2001 creating a WISP using a single cable modem- type 
of doing things.  

I don’t want to use NAT64 to squish a V6 packet on the V4 internet, I want it 
to automagically tunnel V4 traffic from the customer to the NAT64 gateway where 
it can go on its merry way if there is no V6 destination address for the other 
end.  Same thing but different words.  

Really, I want to stop having to acquire more V4 addresses.  That is truly the 
ONLY goal.  

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:54 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Let me see if I can  help the 'light go on'. 

Forget IPv6 for a second.

You assign all of your customers addresses from 100.64.0.0/10, then use a 
standard, garden variety (but preferably at least somewhat carrier grade) NAT 
box to NAT them to the internet.  The customers computers talk IPv4, the NAT 
box does IPv4 to IPv4 NAT (using addresses you already have) and everything is 
happy.   This is dirt cheap to do and requires very little existing 
infrastructure change.


You can then add non-NATed IPv6 on top of this so each customer also gets a new 
shiny IPv6 address which isn't NAT'ed.

NAT64 is expensive and can be buggy since you're trying to squish a heavy IPV6 
packet into the IPV4 internet.  This avoids this problem.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Exactly, this is what we need to solve.  No more new V4 addresses and only V6 
going forward.

  -Original Message- From: Matt
  Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable
V4 address.
We will be out of addresses very soon.


  With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
  the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
  Unless there is something I do not know here?

  No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
  hope you keep us all posted.



-Original Message- From: Matt
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


  Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

  From: Sterling Jacobson
  Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


  Why use NAT64 again?



  I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
  required.



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
  Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



  Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
  a
  pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
  carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.










-- 

  Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

  Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
  forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

 

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Let me see if I can  help the 'light go on'.

Forget IPv6 for a second.

You assign all of your customers addresses from 100.64.0.0/10, then use a
standard, garden variety (but preferably at least somewhat carrier grade)
NAT box to NAT them to the internet.  The customers computers talk IPv4,
the NAT box does IPv4 to IPv4 NAT (using addresses you already have) and
everything is happy.   This is dirt cheap to do and requires very little
existing infrastructure change.

You can then add non-NATed IPv6 on top of this so each customer also gets a
new shiny IPv6 address which isn't NAT'ed.

NAT64 is expensive and can be buggy since you're trying to squish a heavy
IPV6 packet into the IPV4 internet.  This avoids this problem.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Exactly, this is what we need to solve.  No more new V4 addresses and only
> V6 going forward.
>
> -Original Message- From: Matt
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
>> routable
>> V4 address.
>> We will be out of addresses very soon.
>>
>
> With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
> the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
> Unless there is something I do not know here?
>
> No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
> hope you keep us all posted.
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Matt
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
>> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
>> what most cellphones are doing.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
>>>
>>> From: Sterling Jacobson
>>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>>
>>>
>>> Why use NAT64 again?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no
>>> NAT
>>> required.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
>>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
>>> a
>>> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
>>> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipaddr_nat/configuration/xe-3s/nat-xe-3s-book/iadnat-bpa.html

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> Cisco 9001
>
> -Original Message- From: Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:48 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Possibly :) What gear are you using now for edge / transport / access
> routers?
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> You wanna come to Utah for a few days and show us how?
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Josh Reynolds
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:24 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>> Do IPv6 native and CGNAT for IPv4. If you use port block allocation,
>> you will always know what sub(s) are getting complained about with
>> torrent complaints :P
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
>>> a
>>> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
>>> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

Cisco 9001

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Possibly :) What gear are you using now for edge / transport / access 
routers?


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

You wanna come to Utah for a few days and show us how?

-Original Message- From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Do IPv6 native and CGNAT for IPv4. If you use port block allocation,
you will always know what sub(s) are getting complained about with
torrent complaints :P

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
a
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

Possibly :) What gear are you using now for edge / transport / access routers?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> You wanna come to Utah for a few days and show us how?
>
> -Original Message- From: Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:24 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Do IPv6 native and CGNAT for IPv4. If you use port block allocation,
> you will always know what sub(s) are getting complained about with
> torrent complaints :P
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
>> a
>> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
>> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Mike Hammett]

Do CGN for the v4 traffic with the IP space Matt is talking about for the 
inside. 

Mikrotik can handle it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 4:48:05 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64 

We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable 
V4 address. 
We will be out of addresses very soon. 

-Original Message- 
From: Matt 
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64 

Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP? I thought 
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose. Seems to be 
what most cellphones are doing. 


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote: 
> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations. 
> 
> From: Sterling Jacobson 
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64 
> 
> 
> Why use NAT64 again? 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT 
> required. 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown 
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64 
> 
> 
> 
> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs. Takes 
> a 
> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a 
> carrier class manner. If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn. 

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

Exactly, this is what we need to solve.  No more new V4 addresses and only 
V6 going forward.


-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically 
routable

V4 address.
We will be out of addresses very soon.


With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
Unless there is something I do not know here?

No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
hope you keep us all posted.



-Original Message- From: Matt
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


Why use NAT64 again?



I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no 
NAT

required.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
a
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

You wanna come to Utah for a few days and show us how?

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Do IPv6 native and CGNAT for IPv4. If you use port block allocation,
you will always know what sub(s) are getting complained about with
torrent complaints :P

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes 
a

pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn. 

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Matt]

> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable
> V4 address.
> We will be out of addresses very soon.

With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
Unless there is something I do not know here?

No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
hope you keep us all posted.


> -Original Message- From: Matt
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
> what most cellphones are doing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
>>
>> From: Sterling Jacobson
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>>
>> Why use NAT64 again?
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
>> required.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>>
>>
>> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
>> a
>> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
>> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[timothy steele]

You will also need to look into nat464xlat to get IPV6 working with mobile
devices you will still have issues with just NAT64

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016, 6:20 PM George Skorup  wrote:

> He means do v4 to v4 NAT at your core or edge routers. Then stack v6 on
> natively. That's what we're doing. Same reason, not enough v4 addresses
> left.
>
> On 8/1/2016 4:48 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
> > We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
> > routable V4 address.
> > We will be out of addresses very soon.
> >
> > -Original Message- From: Matt
> > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
> >
> > Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
> > 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
> > what most cellphones are doing.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> >> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
> >>
> >> From: Sterling Jacobson
> >> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
> >>
> >>
> >> Why use NAT64 again?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6,
> >> no NAT
> >> required.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> >> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.
> >> Takes a
> >> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
> >> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
> >
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

Are you using /31 for PTP links, or maybe unnumbered links?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable
> V4 address.
> We will be out of addresses very soon.
>
> -Original Message- From: Matt
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
> what most cellphones are doing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
>>
>> From: Sterling Jacobson
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>>
>> Why use NAT64 again?
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
>> required.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>>
>>
>> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
>> a
>> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
>> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

This is the current best answer.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Matt  wrote:
> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
> what most cellphones are doing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
>>
>> From: Sterling Jacobson
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>>
>> Why use NAT64 again?
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
>> required.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
>> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
>>
>>
>>
>> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes a
>> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
>> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Josh Reynolds]

Do IPv6 native and CGNAT for IPv4. If you use port block allocation,
you will always know what sub(s) are getting complained about with
torrent complaints :P

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes a
> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[George Skorup]

He means do v4 to v4 NAT at your core or edge routers. Then stack v6 on 
natively. That's what we're doing. Same reason, not enough v4 addresses 
left.


On 8/1/2016 4:48 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically 
routable V4 address.

We will be out of addresses very soon.

-Original Message- From: Matt
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


Why use NAT64 again?



I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, 
no NAT

required.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  
Takes a

pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn. 

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

Scalable for 6000+ subscribers?

From: timothy steele 
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

OpenBSD

https://youtu.be/RPsis5U4xx0

http://davidcrumpton.blogspot.com/2014/04/ipv6-only-network-with-dns64-nat64-and.html?m=1



On Mon, Aug 1, 2016, 5:48 PM Chuck McCown  wrote:

  We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable
  V4 address.
  We will be out of addresses very soon.

  -Original Message-
  From: Matt
  Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

  Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
  100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
  what most cellphones are doing.


  On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
  > Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
  >
  > From: Sterling Jacobson
  > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
  > To: af@afmug.com
  > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
  >
  >
  > Why use NAT64 again?
  >
  >
  >
  > I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
  > required.
  >
  >
  >
  > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
  > Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
  > To: af@afmug.com
  > Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
  >
  >
  >
  > Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
  > a
  > pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
  > carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[timothy steele]

OpenBSD

https://youtu.be/RPsis5U4xx0

http://davidcrumpton.blogspot.com/2014/04/ipv6-only-network-with-dns64-nat64-and.html?m=1

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016, 5:48 PM Chuck McCown  wrote:

> We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
> routable
> V4 address.
> We will be out of addresses very soon.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
> Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
> 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
> what most cellphones are doing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> > Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
> >
> > From: Sterling Jacobson
> > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
> >
> >
> > Why use NAT64 again?
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no
> NAT
> > required.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> > Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
> >
> >
> >
> > Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes
> > a
> > pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
> > carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable 
V4 address.

We will be out of addresses very soon.

-Original Message- 
From: Matt

Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.

From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64


Why use NAT64 again?



I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
required.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64



Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes 
a

pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn. 

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Matt]

Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP?  I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose.  Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
>
> From: Sterling Jacobson
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
>
> Why use NAT64 again?
>
>
>
> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
> required.
>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
>
>
>
> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes a
> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
> carrier class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

Re: [AFMUG] Powercode billing server access logs

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

sweet, that helps a good deal

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> /var/log/httpd/access-ssl.log I think?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Aug 1, 2016 5:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
> wrote:
>
>> Any Powercode users know of a place I can see access attempts on the
>> webserver (444 primarily)
>>
>> --
>> 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] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.  

From: Sterling Jacobson 
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

Why use NAT64 again?

 

I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT 
required.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64

 

Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes a 
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a carrier 
class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.  

Re: [AFMUG] NAT64

[Sterling Jacobson]

Why use NAT64 again?

I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT 
required.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64

Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes a 
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a carrier 
class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.

[AFMUG] NAT64

[Chuck McCown]

Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs.  Takes a 
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a carrier 
class manner.  If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.  

Re: [AFMUG] Buying a COW? Where?

[Adam Moffett]

I know a guy who has a really nice army surplus unit.  Not sure where he 
got it, but maybe if you know somebody in the business of surplus army 
equipment



-- Original Message --
From: "Sam Lambie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 8/1/2016 4:51:34 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Buying a COW? Where?

I am looking to buy a COW. Preferably a telescoping tower, not a 
monopole. About 35' with 8 antennas on it. Nothing larger than a 1' in 
diameter.

Where do you guys source 'em? Anything used out there?

Sam

--
--
Sam Lambie
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
http://www.newmex.com

Re: [AFMUG] Powercode billing server access logs

[Josh Luthman]

/var/log/httpd/access-ssl.log I think?

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

On Aug 1, 2016 5:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

> Any Powercode users know of a place I can see access attempts on the
> webserver (444 primarily)
>
> --
> 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.
>

[AFMUG] Powercode billing server access logs

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Any Powercode users know of a place I can see access attempts on the
webserver (444 primarily)

-- 
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.

[AFMUG] Buying a COW? Where?

[Sam Lambie]

I am looking to buy a COW. Preferably a telescoping tower, not a monopole.
About 35' with 8 antennas on it. Nothing larger than a 1' in diameter.
Where do you guys source 'em? Anything used out there?

Sam

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

Re: [AFMUG] IRR

[Cassidy B. Larson]

We use http://altdb.net/ and it’s free.  Merit’s RADb mirrors it.


> On Aug 1, 2016, at 12:08 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
> 
> Lots of major carriers use Merit RAdb (not free). They mirror ARIN's RR 
> (free).
> 
> On 8/1/2016 11:18 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:
>> Many folks use Level3 if they are wanting to access other registries.
>> https://nets.ucar.edu/nets/docs/procs/routing-registries/routing_registry_guide_2012.pdf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Obvious choice for most of us is ARIN.
>> https://www.arin.net/resources/routing/ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I did a post on registries last year.
>> http://www.mtin.net/blog/?p=245 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Justin Wilson
>> j...@mtin.net 
>> 
>> ---
>> http://www.mtin.net  Owner/CEO
>> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>> 
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com   COO/Chairman
>> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Butch Evans >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> So I have a customer who is wanting to peer with Netflix.  They require
>>> registration of routes in a route server.  I have never done this sort
>>> of work before and am interested to hear what preferred registry you
>>> all use and why.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Butch Evans
>>> Training and Support for WISPs
>>> 702-537-0979
>>> http://store.wispgear.net/ 
>>> http://www.butchevans.com/ 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Linux traffic shaper with GUI?

[Josh Reynolds]

Have you used 2.3 at all?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Peter Kranz  wrote:
> PFSense solution doesn't really work well with lots of users on the same 
> interface alas, too cumbersome.
>
> Peter Kranz
> www.UnwiredLtd.com
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 8:56 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Linux traffic shaper with GUI?
>
> Not linux based (BSD!), but I concur it is a good solution if that's your bag.
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:11 PM, ccie4526  wrote:
>> PFsense does a pretty good job if you follow these directions:
>> http://www.squidworks.net/2012/08/pfsense-2-0-limiting-users-upload-an
>> d-download-speeds-by-limiting-bandwidth/
>>
>> I'm using it to limit public hotspot users up/down speeds per IP.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Josh Luthman
>> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mikrotik.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Kranz 
>>> wrote:

 Anyone using a linux based traffic shaper to shaper customer
 connections with a reasonably nice GUI? I was using WebHTB but I
 cannot get it to work with the latest Ubunutu 16.04.01 release anymore..



 Peter Kranz
 www.UnwiredLtd.com
 Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
 Mobile: 510-207-
 pkr...@unwiredltd.com


>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Linux traffic shaper with GUI?

[Peter Kranz]

PFSense solution doesn't really work well with lots of users on the same 
interface alas, too cumbersome.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 8:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Linux traffic shaper with GUI?

Not linux based (BSD!), but I concur it is a good solution if that's your bag.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:11 PM, ccie4526  wrote:
> PFsense does a pretty good job if you follow these directions:
> http://www.squidworks.net/2012/08/pfsense-2-0-limiting-users-upload-an
> d-download-speeds-by-limiting-bandwidth/
>
> I'm using it to limit public hotspot users up/down speeds per IP.
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Josh Luthman 
> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Mikrotik.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Kranz 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone using a linux based traffic shaper to shaper customer 
>>> connections with a reasonably nice GUI? I was using WebHTB but I 
>>> cannot get it to work with the latest Ubunutu 16.04.01 release anymore..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Kranz
>>> www.UnwiredLtd.com
>>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
>>> Mobile: 510-207-
>>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IRR

[George Skorup]

Lots of major carriers use Merit RAdb (not free). They mirror ARIN's RR 
(free).


On 8/1/2016 11:18 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:

Many folks use Level3 if they are wanting to access other registries.
https://nets.ucar.edu/nets/docs/procs/routing-registries/routing_registry_guide_2012.pdf


Obvious choice for most of us is ARIN.
https://www.arin.net/resources/routing/


I did a post on registries last year.
http://www.mtin.net/blog/?p=245



Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net 

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

On Aug 1, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Butch Evans > wrote:


So I have a customer who is wanting to peer with Netflix.  They require
registration of routes in a route server.  I have never done this sort
of work before and am interested to hear what preferred registry you
all use and why.


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

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

in an ideal world, i'd allocate a time frame (april?) to check all sites.  use 
infrastructure day.
right now i've actually set aside a 2nd day for instrastructure per WEEK cause 
we're that behind

  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Luthman 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 8:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine


  Classify what gets the red light treatment.  (Giggity)


  Then you can use PagerDuty to make it sms/call with their API, or literally a 
Pi and a red light on the wall, or simply an email.




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


  On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:53 AM, David  wrote:

This is where we are now.. 
I had to get over some Chemically induced pneumonia first before I could 
get back to it again so Ive been busy doing some automation reporting.
I need to get some more of Forrests Site monitors and some AC current 
transducers for watching the lighting systems on a few more of our towers.
Thank goodness for cacti for consolidating all this stuff and loganalyzer. 

What I need now is to get an alarm system in my office or a big red light 
that comes on when a critical alarm hits on these reports.





On 07/31/2016 10:22 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

  Lots of good points here. I think when I sold mine bandwidth was about 8% 
of my total expense.  Finally the last 3 yeasts we established a regular test 
cycle for batteriesalong with writing the install date and last test date. 
Really helps with outages. 
  I can't say how many timesan outage occurred and when I would dig deeper 
the answer was "you were putting so much pressure on us to deploy i didn't 
document or write up the monitoring." I had to start inspecting and testing the 
sites myself,which is really what I should have been doing all along. 



  On Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 10:09 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

Or lacks economies of scale.

I was reading about Oracle buying NetSuite, and it mentioned that after 
Oracle bought PeopleSoft, they fired 5000 employees.

Profits = revenues – expenses

We tend to assume that if we take care of the top line, the bottom line 
will take care of itself.  I’m not arguing against that, just saying some of 
the big guys seem to find it easier to cut expenses.

It doesn’t help that whenever someone “explains” the ISP business 
model, they simplify it to bandwidth costs a penny a gigabit, and everything 
else is profit.  So people don’t think about things like batteries at tower 
sites.  And it certainly is easier for big wired ISPs who can cherry pick their 
territories so they don’t have remote sites feeding 20 subscribers.  It makes 
GPON sound attractive, put all the electronics in a nice building in town, and 
run passive fiber to the customers.

In fairness, mobile carriers have remote cellsites which pretty much 
all have generators.

The sin I’m most guilty of is putting battery backup at a site and then 
not implementing remote monitoring and alarming, so I don’t find out that I 
have to take out a portable generator until the site has been running on 
batteries for a day and they’ve run down.  The other thing with batteries is 
you’ll go 3 years without a power outage and then finally you have one and you 
didn’t replace the batteries and they fail.  So it’s necessary to regularly 
test the batteries or else replace them on a schedule.


From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 9:50 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

a smaller company certainly has a smaller budget

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 8:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

  The secret is to not let it bother you, or create systems and hire 
people that just ignore customer complaints.  At least that’s what some big 
ISPs with no competition do.  (Frontier, Centurylink)  I compare them to slum 
landlords who buy distressed properties and don’t spend a lot of money fixing 
them up or doing maintenance.  If people don’t like it, evict them and somebody 
else will take their place.  The churn costs less than fixing and upgrading the 
infrastructure, and ignoring the whining customers doesn’t cost anything if 
it’s part of your plan and you don’t lose sleep over it.  If you’re really 
clever, you build government subsidies into your business plan.

  It’s like if you sell your WISP to a big company, you probably 
imagine they will implement all the upgrades you couldn’t afford or didn’t get 
around to.  Probably not.  Once you stop losing sleep over customers saying bad 
things about you on Facebook, you spend only enough to keep the churn down to a 
tolerable percentage, the point where the cost of acquiring repl

Re: [AFMUG] IRR

[Justin Wilson]

Many folks use Level3 if they are wanting to access other registries.
https://nets.ucar.edu/nets/docs/procs/routing-registries/routing_registry_guide_2012.pdf
 



Obvious choice for most of us is ARIN.
https://www.arin.net/resources/routing/ 



I did a post on registries last year.
http://www.mtin.net/blog/?p=245 



Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Butch Evans  wrote:
> 
> So I have a customer who is wanting to peer with Netflix.  They require
> registration of routes in a route server.  I have never done this sort
> of work before and am interested to hear what preferred registry you
> all use and why.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Butch Evans
> Training and Support for WISPs
> 702-537-0979
> http://store.wispgear.net/
> http://www.butchevans.com/
> 

[AFMUG] IRR

[Butch Evans]

So I have a customer who is wanting to peer with Netflix.  They require
registration of routes in a route server.  I have never done this sort
of work before and am interested to hear what preferred registry you
all use and why.


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

Re: [AFMUG] IRR

[Mike Hammett]

ARIN. It's free. 

Every BGP speaking network should be in a major IRR. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Butch Evans"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 10:35:55 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] IRR 

So I have a customer who is wanting to peer with Netflix. They require 
registration of routes in a route server. I have never done this sort 
of work before and am interested to hear what preferred registry you 
all use and why. 


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

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[Seth Mattinen]

On 8/1/16 07:17, Josh Luthman wrote:

Long as they know the red light means it's work time!



Philips Hue bridges actually have a RESTful interface you can use for 
controlling the lights.


~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[Josh Luthman]

Long as they know the red light means it's work time!


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

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, David  wrote:

> Ah yeah forgot about the Pi Ive been using audrino for my hobby projects.
> I need to get one and give it a try.
>  Ill have to get one at my home to.. Im sure that will drive the family
> nuts LOL
>
>
> On 08/01/2016 08:59 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Classify what gets the red light treatment.  (Giggity)
>
> Then you can use PagerDuty to make it sms/call with their API, or
> literally a Pi and a red light on the wall, or simply an email.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:53 AM, David  wrote:
>
>> This is where we are now..
>> I had to get over some Chemically induced pneumonia first before I could
>> get back to it again so Ive been busy doing some automation reporting.
>> I need to get some more of Forrests Site monitors and some AC current
>> transducers for watching the lighting systems on a few more of our towers.
>> Thank goodness for cacti for consolidating all this stuff and
>> loganalyzer.
>>
>> What I need now is to get an alarm system in my office or a big red light
>> that comes on when a critical alarm hits on these reports.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/31/2016 10:22 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> Lots of good points here. I think when I sold mine bandwidth was about 8%
>> of my total expense.  Finally the last 3 yeasts we established a regular
>> test cycle for batteriesalong with writing the install date and last test
>> date. Really helps with outages.
>> I can't say how many timesan outage occurred and when I would dig deeper
>> the answer was "you were putting so much pressure on us to deploy i didn't
>> document or write up the monitoring." I had to start inspecting and testing
>> the sites myself,which is really what I should have been doing all along.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 10:09 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> Or lacks economies of scale.
>>>
>>> I was reading about Oracle buying NetSuite, and it mentioned that after
>>> Oracle bought PeopleSoft, they fired 5000 employees.
>>>
>>> Profits = revenues – expenses
>>>
>>> We tend to assume that if we take care of the top line, the bottom line
>>> will take care of itself.  I’m not arguing against that, just saying some
>>> of the big guys seem to find it easier to cut expenses.
>>>
>>> It doesn’t help that whenever someone “explains” the ISP business model,
>>> they simplify it to bandwidth costs a penny a gigabit, and everything else
>>> is profit.  So people don’t think about things like batteries at tower
>>> sites.  And it certainly is easier for big wired ISPs who can cherry pick
>>> their territories so they don’t have remote sites feeding 20 subscribers.
>>> It makes GPON sound attractive, put all the electronics in a nice building
>>> in town, and run passive fiber to the customers.
>>>
>>> In fairness, mobile carriers have remote cellsites which pretty much all
>>> have generators.
>>>
>>> The sin I’m most guilty of is putting battery backup at a site and then
>>> not implementing remote monitoring and alarming, so I don’t find out that I
>>> have to take out a portable generator until the site has been running on
>>> batteries for a day and they’ve run down.  The other thing with batteries
>>> is you’ll go 3 years without a power outage and then finally you have one
>>> and you didn’t replace the batteries and they fail.  So it’s necessary to
>>> regularly test the batteries or else replace them on a schedule.
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller 
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 9:50 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
>>>
>>> a smaller company certainly has a smaller budget
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Ken Hohhof 
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 8:54 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
>>>
>>> The secret is to not let it bother you, or create systems and hire
>>> people that just ignore customer complaints.  At least that’s what some big
>>> ISPs with no competition do.  (Frontier, Centurylink)  I compare them to
>>> slum landlords who buy distressed properties and don’t spend a lot of money
>>> fixing them up or doing maintenance.  If people don’t like it, evict them
>>> and somebody else will take their place.  The churn costs less than fixing
>>> and upgrading the infrastructure, and ignoring the whining customers
>>> doesn’t cost anything if it’s part of your plan and you don’t lose sleep
>>> over it.  If you’re really clever, you build government subsidies into your
>>> business plan.
>>>
>>> It’s like if you sell your WISP to a big company, you probably imagine
>>> they will implement all the upgrades you couldn’t afford or didn’t get
>>> around to.  Probably not.  Once you stop losing sleep over customers saying

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[David]

Ah yeah forgot about the Pi Ive been using audrino for my hobby projects.
I need to get one and give it a try.
 Ill have to get one at my home to.. Im sure that will drive the family 
nuts LOL



On 08/01/2016 08:59 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Classify what gets the red light treatment.  (Giggity)

Then you can use PagerDuty to make it sms/call with their API, or 
literally a Pi and a red light on the wall, or simply an email.



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

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:53 AM, David > wrote:


This is where we are now..
I had to get over some Chemically induced pneumonia first before I
could get back to it again so Ive been busy doing some automation
reporting.
I need to get some more of Forrests Site monitors and some AC
current transducers for watching the lighting systems on a few
more of our towers.
Thank goodness for cacti for consolidating all this stuff and
loganalyzer.

What I need now is to get an alarm system in my office or a big
red light that comes on when a critical alarm hits on these reports.




On 07/31/2016 10:22 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:


Lots of good points here. I think when I sold mine bandwidth was
about 8% of my total expense.  Finally the last 3 yeasts we
established a regular test cycle for batteriesalong with writing
the install date and last test date. Really helps with outages.
I can't say how many timesan outage occurred and when I would dig
deeper the answer was "you were putting so much pressure on us to
deploy i didn't document or write up the monitoring." I had to
start inspecting and testing the sites myself,which is really
what I should have been doing all along.


On Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 10:09 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

Or lacks economies of scale.
I was reading about Oracle buying NetSuite, and it mentioned
that after Oracle bought PeopleSoft, they fired 5000 employees.
Profits = revenues – expenses
We tend to assume that if we take care of the top line, the
bottom line will take care of itself.  I’m not arguing
against that, just saying some of the big guys seem to find
it easier to cut expenses.
It doesn’t help that whenever someone “explains” the ISP
business model, they simplify it to bandwidth costs a penny a
gigabit, and everything else is profit. So people don’t think
about things like batteries at tower sites.  And it certainly
is easier for big wired ISPs who can cherry pick their
territories so they don’t have remote sites feeding 20
subscribers.  It makes GPON sound attractive, put all the
electronics in a nice building in town, and run passive fiber
to the customers.
In fairness, mobile carriers have remote cellsites which
pretty much all have generators.
The sin I’m most guilty of is putting battery backup at a
site and then not implementing remote monitoring and
alarming, so I don’t find out that I have to take out a
portable generator until the site has been running on
batteries for a day and they’ve run down.  The other thing
with batteries is you’ll go 3 years without a power outage
and then finally you have one and you didn’t replace the
batteries and they fail.  So it’s necessary to regularly test
the batteries or else replace them on a schedule.
*From:* CBB - Jay Fuller 
*Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 9:50 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
a smaller company certainly has a smaller budget

- Original Message -
*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 8:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
The secret is to not let it bother you, or create systems
and hire people that just ignore customer complaints.  At
least that’s what some big ISPs with no competition do. 
(Frontier, Centurylink)  I compare them to slum landlords

who buy distressed properties and don’t spend a lot of
money fixing them up or doing maintenance.  If people
don’t like it, evict them and somebody else will take
their place.  The churn costs less than fixing and
upgrading the infrastructure, and ignoring the whining
customers doesn’t cost anything if it’s part of your plan
and you don’t lose sleep over it.  If you’re really
clever, you build government subsidies into your business
plan.
It’s like if you sel

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[Josh Luthman]

Classify what gets the red light treatment.  (Giggity)

Then you can use PagerDuty to make it sms/call with their API, or literally
a Pi and a red light on the wall, or simply an email.


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

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:53 AM, David  wrote:

> This is where we are now..
> I had to get over some Chemically induced pneumonia first before I could
> get back to it again so Ive been busy doing some automation reporting.
> I need to get some more of Forrests Site monitors and some AC current
> transducers for watching the lighting systems on a few more of our towers.
> Thank goodness for cacti for consolidating all this stuff and loganalyzer.
>
> What I need now is to get an alarm system in my office or a big red light
> that comes on when a critical alarm hits on these reports.
>
>
>
>
> On 07/31/2016 10:22 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> Lots of good points here. I think when I sold mine bandwidth was about 8%
> of my total expense.  Finally the last 3 yeasts we established a regular
> test cycle for batteriesalong with writing the install date and last test
> date. Really helps with outages.
> I can't say how many timesan outage occurred and when I would dig deeper
> the answer was "you were putting so much pressure on us to deploy i didn't
> document or write up the monitoring." I had to start inspecting and testing
> the sites myself,which is really what I should have been doing all along.
>
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 10:09 AM Ken Hohhof < 
> af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
>
>> Or lacks economies of scale.
>>
>> I was reading about Oracle buying NetSuite, and it mentioned that after
>> Oracle bought PeopleSoft, they fired 5000 employees.
>>
>> Profits = revenues – expenses
>>
>> We tend to assume that if we take care of the top line, the bottom line
>> will take care of itself.  I’m not arguing against that, just saying some
>> of the big guys seem to find it easier to cut expenses.
>>
>> It doesn’t help that whenever someone “explains” the ISP business model,
>> they simplify it to bandwidth costs a penny a gigabit, and everything else
>> is profit.  So people don’t think about things like batteries at tower
>> sites.  And it certainly is easier for big wired ISPs who can cherry pick
>> their territories so they don’t have remote sites feeding 20 subscribers.
>> It makes GPON sound attractive, put all the electronics in a nice building
>> in town, and run passive fiber to the customers.
>>
>> In fairness, mobile carriers have remote cellsites which pretty much all
>> have generators.
>>
>> The sin I’m most guilty of is putting battery backup at a site and then
>> not implementing remote monitoring and alarming, so I don’t find out that I
>> have to take out a portable generator until the site has been running on
>> batteries for a day and they’ve run down.  The other thing with batteries
>> is you’ll go 3 years without a power outage and then finally you have one
>> and you didn’t replace the batteries and they fail.  So it’s necessary to
>> regularly test the batteries or else replace them on a schedule.
>>
>>
>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 9:50 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
>>
>> a smaller company certainly has a smaller budget
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Ken Hohhof 
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 8:54 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
>>
>> The secret is to not let it bother you, or create systems and hire people
>> that just ignore customer complaints.  At least that’s what some big ISPs
>> with no competition do.  (Frontier, Centurylink)  I compare them to slum
>> landlords who buy distressed properties and don’t spend a lot of money
>> fixing them up or doing maintenance.  If people don’t like it, evict them
>> and somebody else will take their place.  The churn costs less than fixing
>> and upgrading the infrastructure, and ignoring the whining customers
>> doesn’t cost anything if it’s part of your plan and you don’t lose sleep
>> over it.  If you’re really clever, you build government subsidies into your
>> business plan.
>>
>> It’s like if you sell your WISP to a big company, you probably imagine
>> they will implement all the upgrades you couldn’t afford or didn’t get
>> around to.  Probably not.  Once you stop losing sleep over customers saying
>> bad things about you on Facebook, you spend only enough to keep the churn
>> down to a tolerable percentage, the point where the cost of acquiring
>> replacement customers starts to exceed what it would cost to fix the
>> network.  Even with competition, inertia is a powerful force.  Some people
>> will whine but not leave.
>>
>>
>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 30, 2016 6:19 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
>>
>>
>> hahaha - that requires money!  i have to pay for my mafi

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[David]

This is where we are now..
I had to get over some Chemically induced pneumonia first before I could 
get back to it again so Ive been busy doing some automation reporting.
I need to get some more of Forrests Site monitors and some AC current 
transducers for watching the lighting systems on a few more of our towers.

Thank goodness for cacti for consolidating all this stuff and loganalyzer.

What I need now is to get an alarm system in my office or a big red 
light that comes on when a critical alarm hits on these reports.





On 07/31/2016 10:22 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:


Lots of good points here. I think when I sold mine bandwidth was about 
8% of my total expense.  Finally the last 3 yeasts we established a 
regular test cycle for batteriesalong with writing the install date 
and last test date. Really helps with outages.
I can't say how many timesan outage occurred and when I would dig 
deeper the answer was "you were putting so much pressure on us to 
deploy i didn't document or write up the monitoring." I had to start 
inspecting and testing the sites myself,which is really what I should 
have been doing all along.



On Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 10:09 AM Ken Hohhof > wrote:


Or lacks economies of scale.
I was reading about Oracle buying NetSuite, and it mentioned that
after Oracle bought PeopleSoft, they fired 5000 employees.
Profits = revenues – expenses
We tend to assume that if we take care of the top line, the bottom
line will take care of itself.  I’m not arguing against that, just
saying some of the big guys seem to find it easier to cut expenses.
It doesn’t help that whenever someone “explains” the ISP business
model, they simplify it to bandwidth costs a penny a gigabit, and
everything else is profit.  So people don’t think about things
like batteries at tower sites.  And it certainly is easier for big
wired ISPs who can cherry pick their territories so they don’t
have remote sites feeding 20 subscribers.  It makes GPON sound
attractive, put all the electronics in a nice building in town,
and run passive fiber to the customers.
In fairness, mobile carriers have remote cellsites which pretty
much all have generators.
The sin I’m most guilty of is putting battery backup at a site and
then not implementing remote monitoring and alarming, so I don’t
find out that I have to take out a portable generator until the
site has been running on batteries for a day and they’ve run
down.  The other thing with batteries is you’ll go 3 years without
a power outage and then finally you have one and you didn’t
replace the batteries and they fail.  So it’s necessary to
regularly test the batteries or else replace them on a schedule.
*From:* CBB - Jay Fuller 
*Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 9:50 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
a smaller company certainly has a smaller budget

- Original Message -
*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2016 8:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
The secret is to not let it bother you, or create systems and
hire people that just ignore customer complaints.  At least
that’s what some big ISPs with no competition do. (Frontier,
Centurylink)  I compare them to slum landlords who buy
distressed properties and don’t spend a lot of money fixing
them up or doing maintenance.  If people don’t like it, evict
them and somebody else will take their place.  The churn costs
less than fixing and upgrading the infrastructure, and
ignoring the whining customers doesn’t cost anything if it’s
part of your plan and you don’t lose sleep over it.  If you’re
really clever, you build government subsidies into your
business plan.
It’s like if you sell your WISP to a big company, you probably
imagine they will implement all the upgrades you couldn’t
afford or didn’t get around to.  Probably not.  Once you stop
losing sleep over customers saying bad things about you on
Facebook, you spend only enough to keep the churn down to a
tolerable percentage, the point where the cost of acquiring
replacement customers starts to exceed what it would cost to
fix the network. Even with competition, inertia is a powerful
force.  Some people will whine but not leave.
*From:* CBB - Jay Fuller 
*Sent:* Saturday, July 30, 2016 6:19 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine
hahaha - that requires money!  i have to pay for my mafia...

- Original Message -

Re: [AFMUG] whine whine whine whine

[David]

I feel your pain man...

We have got better at keeping customers informed via email and website info.
We stay far away from facebook. I have had my thoughts of doing a site 
there but I think 90% is just
looking for a quick fix for service and if one thing is out of place 
they move to the next.
Working on an app that will inform customer if there is a power failure 
at the site or loss.




On 07/30/2016 05:30 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
so i lost tower "b" yesterday during a storm.  not a bad loss, 
actually.  water in a cable shorted out a power supply.

just happened to be the one backhaul link in.  i got it fixed about 2 pm?
this morning about 11 am another round of storms took out the main 
tower - tower "A " - power outage, i assume.  haven't been down there 
yet.  (ok, it's four hours later, its probably not just a power outage)
now i'm getting calls from customers on "B" that they haven't had 
service in days.  I guess not, if they didn't use it from 3 pm 
yesterday until 11 this morning.uggh
correction - i don't take calls on weekends.  but they know me on 
facebook