Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
On 17/01/2013 14:29, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do you hear us, PS3 and Xbox? Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess. Indeed, the Wii-U launched less than a month ago doesn't have V6 support either. Regards, Neil.
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
On 18/01/2013 17:48, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as they have customers who want to access the v4 internet. Yes indeed, and the smart folks who thought (clearly didn't!) about how the best way to manage IPV6 and IPV4 in the access network have made this really quite difficult. Much more so than it had to be.
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
- Original Message - From: Pavel Dimow paveldi...@gmail.com I have read many of those ipv6 documents and they are great but I still luck to find something like real word scenario. What I mean is that for example I want to start implementation of ipv6 in my enterprise according to mu knowledge so far [ ... ] To paraphrase Guy L Steele: If we are this far on into the new IPv6 world and that question is not one which can be answered by a link on the first page of ghits for 'implementing IPv6', then the IPv6 people have blown it badly. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Dimow paveldi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have read many of those ipv6 documents and they are great but I still luck to find something like real word scenario. What I mean is that for example I want to start implementation of ipv6 in my enterprise according to mu knowledge so far my first step is to create address plan, then implement security on routers/switches then on hosts, and after that I can start to create record and PTR recors in DNS and after that I should configure my dhcp servers and after all has been done I can test ipv6 in LAN and after that I can start configure bgp with ISP. Is this correct procedure? Any thoughts? If all is correct I have a few questions.. Regarding DNS, if I give a /64 to host using SLAAC or DHCP how do I maintain PTR for this /64? I should use DDNS? What do you use in your enterprise SLAAC or DHCP? If SLAAC why not DHCP? Any other hints/tips? As being personally involved deploying IPv6 on an enterprise network, here's how I did it (keeping in mind the fact that we have our own ASN): - get a /48 PI from the local LIR - configure the border routers to announce the prefix and do connectivity tests (ping Google/Facebook addresses using an IPv6 address from our own /48 - loopback on the router) - configure IPv6 addresses on internal router and do connectivity tests again - configure firewall interfaces with IPv6 addresses and again connectivity tests - configure IPv6 firewall rules (mostly a mirror of the IPv4 rulesets) - configure IPv6 address on DMZ servers (actually the first one configured were the DNS servers) - do connectivity tests again - publish IPv6 records for the DNS servers and for the domain and run ping/telnet 80 tests from another ipv6 enabled network to check that everything is OK. - publish records for all the hosts in the DMZ and making sure all the services available on IPv4 were also available on IPv6 - did the same for the servers in the Server network - last stept was to enable IPv6 on the nework that served the users using RA with the stateful configuration bit set on the firewall and DHCPv6 to serve up DNS servers for IPv6 Yes, I know there are a lot of connectivity tests but it allowed me to check that routing was working and ports were open on the firewall as expected as I got deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole :) PTRs are only enabled/published for servers and user networks, but it's not announced on the internet. It's working fine since August-September of 2011 without issues in a dual stack environment. I thought about running pure IPv6 inside and do 6to4, but it's too much of a headache, not to mention that not all the internal equipment knows about IPv6 - L2 switches, some terminal servers and so on. If you're not sure about things, do it on the equipment with the lowest operational impact and see how that goes. Eugeniu
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.netwrote: I thought about running pure IPv6 inside and do 6to4, but it's too much of a headache, Nice call (skipping 6to4) not to mention that not all the internal equipment knows about IPv6 - L2 switches, some terminal servers and so on. Does an L2 switch really care about IPv6? (except for stuff like DHCPv6 snooping, etc?) -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent -- “When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC - Kahlil Gibran ---
Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? Unfortunately the ones I have contain more humor than success. Story #1 Ethernet/Fiber service near Tampa ordered via partner, misordered as MPLS, re-ordered as vpls. Delivered by June, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a MAC off the NID ever since. Similarly, I have been unsuccessful in getting the LEC onsite to troubleshoot the NID. My last update was a due date of 2/22, after they missed a 1/17 date. Nope, not a typo. Story #2 Ethernet/Fiber service in Phoenix ordered via partner. Apparently, in order to save on the expense of the NID/switch combo, the LEC ran the second set of fiber strands up to an existing customer in the building, using dedicated conduit from the building dmarc (which is accessible by our customer). They then instructed us to run copper back from their customer back to our customer's space. This recipient of the new fiber refused permission (not to mention being unhappy at unwittingly providing shared service). LEC claims the order was marked closed and delivered and any changes are new orders that will take 45 days. There has not been an update since, although presumably, we are on the 45 day clock. Due on the 1st, delivered in mid December, this is a month late with no timely resolution in sight. I have been assured by everyone involved that escalation has been pursued to the highest levels, including pleading with the CEO of the unwitting service providing customer, to no avail. If someone from Centurylink who can make things happen and be privy to the real dealings would please reach out directly to me, I have high hopes that there can be happy endings for these stories. Or if anybody has any useful suggestions, ideas, advice, or even commiserations, all are welcome to share. Best, Joe
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:26:43 +0100, Pavel Dimow said: Hi, I have read many of those ipv6 documents and they are great but I still luck to find something like real word scenario. I wish I had taken notes when we actually did this last century. pgpeb2r7wChr6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Dimow paveldi...@gmail.com wrote: As being personally involved deploying IPv6 on an enterprise network, here's how I did it (keeping in mind the fact that we have our own ASN): I suggest this be step 0 - get a /48 PI from the local LIR And this be step 1
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
s/CenturyLink/ATT and I've got plenty of good stories for you. I think the big telcos these days simply don't care, and don't understand. They hire sales drones from Wal-Mart, and expect them to put in orders for longhaul circuits, or metro ethernet, and what you get is samples of perfume or pizza delivery. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? Unfortunately the ones I have contain more humor than success. Story #1 Ethernet/Fiber service near Tampa ordered via partner, misordered as MPLS, re-ordered as vpls. Delivered by June, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a MAC off the NID ever since. Similarly, I have been unsuccessful in getting the LEC onsite to troubleshoot the NID. My last update was a due date of 2/22, after they missed a 1/17 date. Nope, not a typo. Story #2 Ethernet/Fiber service in Phoenix ordered via partner. Apparently, in order to save on the expense of the NID/switch combo, the LEC ran the second set of fiber strands up to an existing customer in the building, using dedicated conduit from the building dmarc (which is accessible by our customer). They then instructed us to run copper back from their customer back to our customer's space. This recipient of the new fiber refused permission (not to mention being unhappy at unwittingly providing shared service). LEC claims the order was marked closed and delivered and any changes are new orders that will take 45 days. There has not been an update since, although presumably, we are on the 45 day clock. Due on the 1st, delivered in mid December, this is a month late with no timely resolution in sight. I have been assured by everyone involved that escalation has been pursued to the highest levels, including pleading with the CEO of the unwitting service providing customer, to no avail. If someone from Centurylink who can make things happen and be privy to the real dealings would please reach out directly to me, I have high hopes that there can be happy endings for these stories. Or if anybody has any useful suggestions, ideas, advice, or even commiserations, all are welcome to share. Best, Joe -- Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
Spoken like a true ATT customer..;) From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com Date: 01/28/2013 10:07 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com Cc: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land s/CenturyLink/ATT and I've got plenty of good stories for you. I think the big telcos these days simply don't care, and don't understand. They hire sales drones from Wal-Mart, and expect them to put in orders for longhaul circuits, or metro ethernet, and what you get is samples of perfume or pizza delivery. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? Unfortunately the ones I have contain more humor than success. Story #1 Ethernet/Fiber service near Tampa ordered via partner, misordered as MPLS, re-ordered as vpls. Delivered by June, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a MAC off the NID ever since. Similarly, I have been unsuccessful in getting the LEC onsite to troubleshoot the NID. My last update was a due date of 2/22, after they missed a 1/17 date. Nope, not a typo. Story #2 Ethernet/Fiber service in Phoenix ordered via partner. Apparently, in order to save on the expense of the NID/switch combo, the LEC ran the second set of fiber strands up to an existing customer in the building, using dedicated conduit from the building dmarc (which is accessible by our customer). They then instructed us to run copper back from their customer back to our customer's space. This recipient of the new fiber refused permission (not to mention being unhappy at unwittingly providing shared service). LEC claims the order was marked closed and delivered and any changes are new orders that will take 45 days. There has not been an update since, although presumably, we are on the 45 day clock. Due on the 1st, delivered in mid December, this is a month late with no timely resolution in sight. I have been assured by everyone involved that escalation has been pursued to the highest levels, including pleading with the CEO of the unwitting service providing customer, to no avail. If someone from Centurylink who can make things happen and be privy to the real dealings would please reach out directly to me, I have high hopes that there can be happy endings for these stories. Or if anybody has any useful suggestions, ideas, advice, or even commiserations, all are welcome to share. Best, Joe -- Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
If the bells werent so bell like, it would be a lot harder to win business from them. A colleague of mine is fond of asserting that the peter principle applies to corporations as a whole. Joe Warren Bailey wrote: Spoken like a true ATT customer..;) From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com Date: 01/28/2013 10:07 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com Cc: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land s/CenturyLink/ATT and I've got plenty of good stories for you. I think the big telcos these days simply don't care, and don't understand. They hire sales drones from Wal-Mart, and expect them to put in orders for longhaul circuits, or metro ethernet, and what you get is samples of perfume or pizza delivery. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? Unfortunately the ones I have contain more humor than success. Story #1 Ethernet/Fiber service near Tampa ordered via partner, misordered as MPLS, re-ordered as vpls. Delivered by June, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a MAC off the NID ever since. Similarly, I have been unsuccessful in getting the LEC onsite to troubleshoot the NID. My last update was a due date of 2/22, after they missed a 1/17 date. Nope, not a typo. Story #2 Ethernet/Fiber service in Phoenix ordered via partner. Apparently, in order to save on the expense of the NID/switch combo, the LEC ran the second set of fiber strands up to an existing customer in the building, using dedicated conduit from the building dmarc (which is accessible by our customer). They then instructed us to run copper back from their customer back to our customer's space. This recipient of the new fiber refused permission (not to mention being unhappy at unwittingly providing shared service). LEC claims the order was marked closed and delivered and any changes are new orders that will take 45 days. There has not been an update since, although presumably, we are on the 45 day clock. Due on the 1st, delivered in mid December, this is a month late with no timely resolution in sight. I have been assured by everyone involved that escalation has been pursued to the highest levels, including pleading with the CEO of the unwitting service providing customer, to no avail. If someone from Centurylink who can make things happen and be privy to the real dealings would please reach out directly to me, I have high hopes that there can be happy endings for these stories. Or if anybody has any useful suggestions, ideas, advice, or even commiserations, all are welcome to share. Best, Joe -- Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
On 1/28/2013 7:27 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: - configure IPv6 firewall rules (mostly a mirror of the IPv4 rulesets) Hopefully that did not included filtering ICMPv6? :)
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
On 1/28/2013 6:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: To paraphrase Guy L Steele: If we are this far on into the new IPv6 world and that question is not one which can be answered by a link on the first page of ghits for 'implementing IPv6', then the IPv6 people have blown it badly. Can you show me the equivalent link for I want to implement IPv4 on my network?
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
On 28 January 2013 10:35, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: Spoken like a true ATT customer..;) I've had an ATT FTTU in my bedroom closet, which was an Alcatel HONT-C (4 POTS (unused), 1 Ethernet; 155.52 Mbps upstream and 622.08 Mbps downstream; shared with at most 32 users), and ATT California outright refused to provision the U-verse internet at anything higher than 18Mbps downstream and 1.5Mbps upstream, at a time when their web-site loudly offered a 24Mbps tier for the general public for 10 extra bucks. Yes, this was at a time when VDSL2 users were already provisioned 24Mbps down and 3Mbps up; FTTU users weren't privileged as such (and probably still aren't to this day). ATT FTTU experience starts with the installation: you have a fibre technician that calls you prior to the date of the centrally-scheduled appointment, and tells you that you'll have an extra appointment prior (and in addition) to the original pre-scheduled appointment date. He'll also likely confide in you that that's the way things work at T -- he has to schedule his own appointments for FTTU ONT installation, and no single customer is beforehand informed of any such appointments. Then in a misunderstanding that something can be done to get the advertised speeds that certainly must be supported by the installed ONT, you can spend hours with sales, tech support and the ATT California executive office, who will all give all sorts of excuses that you are too long from the CO / VRAD / etc etc. Whereas in reality ATT is simply too lazy to update their FTTU provisioning profiles, and not a single FTTU installation is being offered any internet services above 18Mbps. (Somehow, it is my impression that noone in the company even knows this for a fact -- I've not had a single over-the-phone representative confirm that 24Mbps tier is never offered for FTTU.) Note that even if you disregard the fact that Verizon successfully delivers 25/25, 50/20 and many other tiers over essentially the same technology, the simple math of 622/155 divided by 32 users turns out to be higher than 18/1.5, and especially several factors higher than the 1.5 part of 18/1.5. This does not even account for many people getting the cheapest and slower tiers, or the fact that the whole point of FTTU BPON is overprovisioning support. Well, that's ATT for you: already has the network, already has the price structure, already has the marketing going, already has all the passive and active equipment installed that's capable of vastly superior speeds, already has the customers willing to pay more each month for faster speeds, and already has customers abandoning FTTU services because of artificially-imposed speed limitations, yet T still can't be bothered to flip some provisioning bits. C.
Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:03 , Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Dimow paveldi...@gmail.com wrote: As being personally involved deploying IPv6 on an enterprise network, here's how I did it (keeping in mind the fact that we have our own ASN): I suggest this be step 0 Yes. - get a /48 PI from the local LIR And this be step 1 No, this is step 2 and /48 is not necessarily the right answer. Step 1 is to evaluate your network and figure out your addressing needs. If you have a single corporate office and are not an ISP, then /48 is fine. If you have multiple locations, then a /48 per location is more appropriate. If you are an ISP, then you need to look at a more involved address planning exercise. Owen
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: Well, that's ATT for you: already has the network, already has the price structure, already has the marketing going, already has all the passive and active equipment installed that's capable of vastly superior speeds, already has the customers willing to pay more each month for faster speeds, and already has customers abandoning FTTU services because of artificially-imposed speed limitations, yet T still can't be bothered to flip some provisioning bits. And then there's the ATT U-Verse outage for the better part of a week. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/tech/web/uverse-outage-att/index.html On the other hand, I've been unsuccessfully trying to pay my Verizon Fios bill for a month now. The credit card died two months ago. They keep trying to bill it. Can't log in to the linked account online. The web site mentions that a temporary password can be had from the paper bill they haven't sent in the better part of a decade. After hours on the phone the representative opened a ticket with IT. They sent me an email reminding me that their billing failed. With no return contact information, just an invitation to log in to my non-working account and pay it. What fun! -Bill -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
You should try paying Verizon in Advance, they sent me to collections because I had a negative balance on my account for 3 months. Took me 6 months after closing my account to get them to correct the late payment charges and send me a refund. -- http://dcp.dcptech.com -Original Message- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:18 PM To: Constantine A. Murenin Cc: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List Subject: Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: Well, that's ATT for you: already has the network, already has the price structure, already has the marketing going, already has all the passive and active equipment installed that's capable of vastly superior speeds, already has the customers willing to pay more each month for faster speeds, and already has customers abandoning FTTU services because of artificially-imposed speed limitations, yet T still can't be bothered to flip some provisioning bits. And then there's the ATT U-Verse outage for the better part of a week. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/tech/web/uverse-outage-att/index.html On the other hand, I've been unsuccessfully trying to pay my Verizon Fios bill for a month now. The credit card died two months ago. They keep trying to bill it. Can't log in to the linked account online. The web site mentions that a temporary password can be had from the paper bill they haven't sent in the better part of a decade. After hours on the phone the representative opened a ticket with IT. They sent me an email reminding me that their billing failed. With no return contact information, just an invitation to log in to my non-working account and pay it. What fun! -Bill -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
My experience with one of the big 2 telcos in the USA is unbelievable even now looking back a few months: 1. at my key network monitoring site telco Northern Telecom (before NT changed their name to Nortel) SONET equipment circa 1995 kept failing, taking legacy circuits down hard. 2. Escalating the problem to the account team resulted in their maintaining that there were no SONET alarms at the telco monitoring site, so nothing could be done. 3. At the 4th SONET outage, the telco discovered that the Northern Telecom alarm component had failed which explained why there were no alarms for the previous outages. 4. Despite all of the outages to a key location, the telco took 8 months to replace the NT equipment with modern MSPP equipment. During job walks with the telco, the telco OSP engineers insisted that the NT equipment was still good since it is still working, and tried to talk me out of insisting that they upgrade their NT equipment. The above anecdote is typical in my experience with the telcos, and underscores the need for a national broadband buildout in the USA, funded and run by the Federal Government, based upon the Australian National Broadband Network model. The USA telcos have had their chance, in my opinion, now is the time for them to get out of the way. Here is a link to the Australian National Broadband site, describing how the existing telco-owned copper network will be switched off: http://www.nbn.gov.au/2012/12/03/did-you-know-that-our-copper-network-is-being-switched-off/ David On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2013 10:35, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: Spoken like a true ATT customer..;) I've had an ATT FTTU in my bedroom closet, which was an Alcatel HONT-C (4 POTS (unused), 1 Ethernet; 155.52 Mbps upstream and 622.08 Mbps downstream; shared with at most 32 users), and ATT California outright refused to provision the U-verse internet at anything higher than 18Mbps downstream and 1.5Mbps upstream, at a time when their web-site loudly offered a 24Mbps tier for the general public for 10 extra bucks. Yes, this was at a time when VDSL2 users were already provisioned 24Mbps down and 3Mbps up; FTTU users weren't privileged as such (and probably still aren't to this day). ATT FTTU experience starts with the installation: you have a fibre technician that calls you prior to the date of the centrally-scheduled appointment, and tells you that you'll have an extra appointment prior (and in addition) to the original pre-scheduled appointment date. He'll also likely confide in you that that's the way things work at T -- he has to schedule his own appointments for FTTU ONT installation, and no single customer is beforehand informed of any such appointments. Then in a misunderstanding that something can be done to get the advertised speeds that certainly must be supported by the installed ONT, you can spend hours with sales, tech support and the ATT California executive office, who will all give all sorts of excuses that you are too long from the CO / VRAD / etc etc. Whereas in reality ATT is simply too lazy to update their FTTU provisioning profiles, and not a single FTTU installation is being offered any internet services above 18Mbps. (Somehow, it is my impression that noone in the company even knows this for a fact -- I've not had a single over-the-phone representative confirm that 24Mbps tier is never offered for FTTU.) Note that even if you disregard the fact that Verizon successfully delivers 25/25, 50/20 and many other tiers over essentially the same technology, the simple math of 622/155 divided by 32 users turns out to be higher than 18/1.5, and especially several factors higher than the 1.5 part of 18/1.5. This does not even account for many people getting the cheapest and slower tiers, or the fact that the whole point of FTTU BPON is overprovisioning support. Well, that's ATT for you: already has the network, already has the price structure, already has the marketing going, already has all the passive and active equipment installed that's capable of vastly superior speeds, already has the customers willing to pay more each month for faster speeds, and already has customers abandoning FTTU services because of artificially-imposed speed limitations, yet T still can't be bothered to flip some provisioning bits. C.
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
On 28 January 2013 13:57, david peahi davidpe...@gmail.com wrote: The above anecdote is typical in my experience with the telcos, and underscores the need for a national broadband buildout in the USA, funded and run by the Federal Government, based upon the Australian National Broadband Network model. The USA telcos have had their chance, in my opinion, now is the time for them to get out of the way. Here is a link to the Australian National Broadband site, describing how the existing telco-owned copper network will be switched off: http://www.nbn.gov.au/2012/12/03/did-you-know-that-our-copper-network-is-being-switched-off/ Do they have any customers object? I recall a few recent stories about Verizon having problems after Sandy with NYC customers insisting that they want DSL restored instead of the FiOS brought in. C.
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 28 January 2013 13:57, david peahi davidpe...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nbn.gov.au/2012/12/03/did-you-know-that-our-copper-network-is-being-switched-off/ Do they have any customers object? I recall a few recent stories about Verizon having problems after Sandy with NYC customers insisting that they want DSL restored instead of the FiOS brought in. C. Copper services are still down in the neighborhood. Fiber is not a UNE.
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
--- muren...@gmail.com wrote: From: Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com Here is a link to the Australian National Broadband site, describing how the existing telco-owned copper network will be switched off: http://www.nbn.gov.au/2012/12/03/did-you-know-that-our-copper-network-is-being-switched-off/ Do they have any customers object? I recall a few recent stories about Verizon having problems after Sandy with NYC customers insisting that they want DSL restored instead of the FiOS brought in. Having listened to ausnog for a while, I'm not so sure about how well that has/is worked/working for Australia. scott
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? yes. switched my WA residential to comcast. *much* happier. randy
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
On 1/28/13 8:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Anybody have some happy success stories to share about service in Qwest service area post Centurylink acquisition? yes. switched my WA residential to comcast. *much* happier. Thanks, that made me laugh. Myself, for residential, have long left ATT/SBC/Ameritech behind, and used Comcast (nee MediaOne) for years, but am now happiest with WOW (wowway). On the ATT front, I had a campaign this past fall that setup its headquarters in a strip mall. Very time sensitive, campaigns need short term office space for about 2 months. Actually, *this* campaign (you really want to watch this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v52FLMOPSig No Comcast or anything other than ATT available. But the site was a former bank (it moved to the other end of the strip mall), and there are lots of T1 terminal blocks all ready to go, and the site has lots of wiring in place. So, no problem? HA! Getting them to sell you service: No, sorry, no actual T1s anymore. No U-Verse available (yet I can see the U-Verse labels in the neighborhood on the other side of the fence), they only offer business ADSL over those lines now, 3 times the price of U-Verse at less than half the speed. (We didn't want ADSL, because we're running our own VoIP phones and Google Voice, so preferred symmetric bandwidth.) Getting them to install service: I can read them the block and circuit labels 'til I'm blue in the face, but they have to roll a truck. The order specifically says they have to call my cell an hour in advance so I can get there and have maintenance open the dmarc. They don't call. Heck, they don't come to the right place -- apparently something in the master list tells them the bank has moved, so they go to the bank -- wrong location and different dmarc door. Again, and again, and again! Finally, after daily calls for a week, and 30+ hours of my time, a very helpful customer support Democrat in Las Vegas puts all the right things in place, and helpfully calls me during the install to ensure it's actually starting, as the truck rolls up. Bless her!!! The installer also explains that nobody likes to call in advance, because those trips cut down on their daily total, and lots of them are really treated like independent contractors. Unlike the old days, they don't have any responsibility for their own areas and that's why the dmarcs have fallen into utter disrepair. It's not the longest or worst install I've ever had -- that prize goes to the old Bell South -- but pretty high profile nerve wracking. Yet ATT kept trying to bill for the week without service. Anyway, she did win the election :-)
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
On 1/28/2013 4:57 PM, david peahi wrote: and underscores the need for a national broadband buildout in the USA, funded and run by the Federal Government Maybe Australia has a better track record... but over the past few decades, the US Federal government: (A) ...cannot do a darn thing without MASSIVE graft corruption... plus massive overruns in costs... including a HEAVY dose of crony capitalism where, often, the companies who get the contracts are the ones who pad the wallets of the politicians in charge. About the ONLY thing the Feds do efficiently is write mail checks. (B) In the US, we have this thing called the 4th amendment which ensures a certain level of freedom and civil liberties and privacy. Unfortunately, 4th amendment rights essentially disappear if the US Federal government owns and operates broadband access. Additionally, such ownership will then allow them to control/regulate the information... to ensure that information damaging to the incumbent politicians is minimized, especially close to election times. (as they did with campaign finance reform!) And their ability to eavesdrop increases exponentially, as legal and technical hurtles significantly lessen! (C) This allows them to do what the FCC ACTIVELY trying to do recently, but hasn't yet found a way. Ya think this is conspiracy hysteria? Again, look at aspects of campaign reform law, which limited certain ads close to election time in a manner which disproportionately benefits incumbents! Furthermore, when the Federal Government proposes atrocious things like the proposed Disclose Act (from just a few years ago), then you have to wonder about their true motivations. Here is an article written by 8 former FCC chairmen about the Disclose Act: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703460404575244772070710374.html ...can any sane person read that article... and then trust the US Federal Gov't motives with owning/operating vast amounts of Broadband? Finally, while I've witnessed incompetence amongst certain unnamed baby bells, there ARE... MANY... bright spots in Internet connectivity. Frankly, we're spoiled by our successes. And the worst of the baby bells, like all baby bells, do NOT have a monopoly. Often, they must compete with (at minimum) the local cable access provider. For example, in many areas that the baby bells failed to provide competent service, the local cable access provider filled the void, and did much better. I'm trying to not name shame... but I've seen THAT... FIRST HAND. The market will eventually sort this out... and in many cases already has! Meanwhile, Amtrack and the Post Office show no signs of ever making it without their MASSIVE taxpayer subsidies. And the Department of Education continues to not know where billions of dollars goes each year... Yet, in contrast, Enron execs in are jail and Enron is no longer in existence. As I said, the free market tends to sort these things out over time. (especially when crony capitalism is NOT a part of the mix.) -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ r...@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032
Google's Public DNS does DNSSEC validation
This is interesting news; it seems that Google's Public DNS is performing DNSSEC validation (when the DO-bit is set): dig +dnssec +multi www.dnssec.nl @8.8.8.8 ; DiG 9.9.1-vjs163.18-P1 +dnssec +multi www.dnssec.nl @8.8.8.8 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51937 ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 512 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.dnssec.nl.IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.dnssec.nl.21580 IN A 213.154.228.160 www.dnssec.nl.21580 IN RRSIG A 8 3 86400 ( 20130227071505 20130128071505 33084 dnssec.nl. J9MzudQJHT7UEFZDxioAeOSARqvN87stHIiXLdl1f6ZB I3UGSqKIOlYpuaM7a6jk8k8oajUkGEHGOxa9ypJQHvlv mAE6noaI5sZh6R6lnkd48zGs/xPg4BNODG2zNb3I/lQ3 2ojQtcs9AIMDEtH5+XISuwvPre5hhYkneM6mtUc= ) ;; Query time: 28 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Tue Jan 29 08:03:53 2013 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 227 -- Marco Davids smime.p7s Description: S/MIME-cryptografische ondertekening
