Re: Voip faxing

[Carlos Alcantar]

That link shared right there is pretty much gold when it comes to faxing / 
modems over voip.  Thats pretty much what you will get out of any discussion.  
We have successfully been able to get it to work but we also control the 
network a-z including the outside plant down to the house.  What we have 
started to notice even when we are passing the calls down into the PSTN through 
the local interconnect tandems ect people down the line are converting it down 
to voip.



Carlos Alcantar

Race Communications / Race Team Member

1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010

Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: NANOG  on behalf of John Osmon 

Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:27:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Voip faxing

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 04:52:46AM +, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
> Hey Samual,
>
>
> you might want to check out the voice ops mailing list, might be a bit more 
> relevant over there.
>
>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Aside from voiceops, here's decade (or more?) old web page that I point
people to when they want to deal with Fax over VoIP:
http://www.soft-switch.org/foip.html

Google contact needed to help resolve captcha issue

[Fredrik Holmqvist / I2B]

Hi.

We have a customer who have their /32 IPv6 block captcha blocked, and 
also their /19 IPv4 have been blocked with captchas.
The big issue is that it doesn't help to solve the captchas, there is a 
new one directly after and solving it gives a new one and so it goes on 
till you move to Bing do do searches.
Even parts of their netblocks that arn't in use are blocked, and have 
been for 3 weeks now.
We have tried to contact google, but no one gets back. There is no 
useful information on how to solve the issue either.


Would be great to have a tool like SPAMhaus or other RBLs, where you as 
a ISP can see the offending IPs and take care of the problem (if there 
is one).


--
Fredrik Holmqvist
I2B (Internet 2 Business)
+46-70-740 5033

[NANOG-announce] NANOG Registration Fee Changes

[Dave Temkin]

Greetings, NANOGers-


In February 2016, the Board began to review and discuss how best to achieve
our stated financial and organizational objectives while ensuring NANOG
meetings and associated agendas remain peer reviewed and free of any
external financial dependence or influence.

NANOG Strategic Goals are:

   -

   Maintain Educational 501(c)(3) Non-Profit status
   -

   Maintain Membership Policies and Procedures
   -

   Maintain tri-annual, peer-reviewed NANOG Conferences
   -

   Maintain community email list(s) and archive
   -

   Maintain public presentation archives
   -

   Adherence to NANOG Financial Controls and Reserve Policy
   -

   Ensure funding to provide educational outreach
   -

  Continue - Discounted student registration fee
  -

  Continue - College Immersion Program
  -

  Revised scholarship program (Combine Postel and Fellowship, convert
  to tuition based)
  -

  Revise and reintroduce education courses
  -

   Continue to drive increases in member value


It is understood that NANOG conferences are, by far, the largest asset of
this organization.  It is the delivery mechanism for several of the NANOG
strategic goals. At the same time, it is also the largest area of concern
when planning how best to achieve those goals.

The registration fee was last increased in February 2008, while expenses
related to producing NANOG meetings have continued to rise with both
inflation and breadth of programs and benefits offered. The current meeting
registration fee does not cover the cost of producing a NANOG meeting
without external funding associated with the NANOG sponsorship program.
Thus, in order to maintain our peer reviewed program and funding
independence, the following registration fees schedule will apply beginning
with NANOG 69:

Existing NANOG 69 & Forward

   -

   Early: $450 $550
   -

   Standard: $525 $650
   -

   Late: $600 $750
   -

   On-site: $675 $950


The member discount of $25 for all registration fees will continue to
apply. The Board is confident that these fees set us on the correct path to
adhere to our reserve policy and ensure that the organization is protected
in the event that we were faced with unforeseen circumstances.

The Board met again after the initial announcement of these registration
fee increases at NANOG 68 to review the valuable feedback provided. We
decided that it was in the best interests of the organization to move
forward with these fee increases immediately and to programatically
consider our fees on an annual basis.

For the NANOG Board of Directors,

Dave Temkin
Chair
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: dilemmas

[Randy Bush]

>> https://blog.pinboard.in/2016/10/benjamin_button_reviews_the_new_macbook_pro/
> 
> I'm going to wait for this one before buying.  Looks like a much better
> option than what's on the table right now.

i loved that one!

Re: dilemmas

[Nick Hilliard]

Randy Bush wrote:
> the users' dilemma: do you buy a mac today, or wait six month hoping
> they will fix X (for your particular X)?

Apparently, they're bringing out an upgraded upgrade soon:

> https://blog.pinboard.in/2016/10/benjamin_button_reviews_the_new_macbook_pro/

I'm going to wait for this one before buying.  Looks like a much better
option than what's on the table right now.

Nick

Re: dilemmas

[Todd Underwood]

randy,

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

>
> yep.  and thanks for the forward, reminding my why i have a long
> .procmailrc.
>

if this is an attempt to simply publicly mock someone on the nanog list i
have a polite request:  keep your snark to yourself.

this kind of uncivil behavior is part of what keeps this community so
homogenous as it appeals only to people willing to put up with this kind of
public nastiness.  as someone who i thought supporting increasing diversity
in our community, i would expect a higher standard of professionalism and
inclusion from you.

this may also tend to keep you off of everyone else's increasingly long
(but possibly less public) mail filters.

apologies if i misunderstood your terse and otherwise apparently
content-free missive.

cheers,

t