Re: FCC: Staff Report on T-Mobile Outage on June 15 2020

[Christopher Morrow]

The larger story here is...

"7. Routing.  Routers connect T-Mobile’s LTE towers to T-Mobile’s LTE
network.  These routers utilize a routing protocol called Open
Shortest Path First."

Calling Vijay Gill to the courtesy phone.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:
>
> - On Nov 12, 2020, at 9:35 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > FCC Issues Staff Report On T-Mobile Outage
> >
> > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-issues-staff-report-t-mobile-outage-0
>
> This part, I find most interesting as well:
>
> > However, they were unable to resolve the issue by restoring the link because
> > the network management tools required to do so remotely relied on the same
> > paths they had just disabled.
>
> I can't begin to tell you how often I battled senior mgmt to get some 
> investment
> into an OOB network. This only proves the point.
>
> Parantap, are you reading this? I know you are.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri

Re: FCC: Staff Report on T-Mobile Outage on June 15 2020

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Nov 12, 2020, at 9:35 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:

Hi,

> FCC Issues Staff Report On T-Mobile Outage
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-issues-staff-report-t-mobile-outage-0

This part, I find most interesting as well:

> However, they were unable to resolve the issue by restoring the link because
> the network management tools required to do so remotely relied on the same
> paths they had just disabled. 

I can't begin to tell you how often I battled senior mgmt to get some investment
into an OOB network. This only proves the point.

Parantap, are you reading this? I know you are.

Thanks,

Sabri

FCC: Staff Report on T-Mobile Outage on June 15 2020

[Sean Donelan]

FCC Issues Staff Report On T-Mobile Outage

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-issues-staff-report-t-mobile-outage-0


The outage was initially caused by an equipment failure and then 
exacerbated by a network routing misconfiguration that occurred when 
T-Mobile introduced a new router into its network. In addition, the outage 
was magnified by a software flaw in T-Mobile’s network that had been 
latent for months and interfered with customers’ ability to initiate or 
receive voice calls during the outage.



[...]
44. While fiber link failures are common, PSHSB finds that these steps, 
taken together, will reduce the likelihood that a fiber link failure could 
result in the recurrence of a similar event in TMobile’s network because 
traffic would be routed to an alternative path that could handle it. 
Moreover, if such an event recurred on T-Mobile’s network, it would not 
cause such a large service disruption because T-Mobile would have improved 
its networks’ ability to manage congestion in the case of a similar event
and would have increased network capacity to maintain the network in a 
working state even with an increased volume of traffic.

Re: Apple Catalina Appears to Introduce Massive Jitter - SOLVED!

[Mark Tinka]

Thanks, J.

So I did test this a few times as well. The only thing I had enabled 
(during the first test) in "System Services" was "Find My Mac". 
Everything else was turned off, and the issue remained.


Just to confirm that this was a clean install of Catalina, so the only 
wi-fi AP in my history is my home one, as I haven't worked in a cafe, 
airport, or hotel since then :-).


Since disabling Bluetooth and the system stabilizing, I've re-enabled 
"Location-Based Suggestions" and "Significant Locations" only. 
Everything else under "System Services" is still turned off, including 
"Wi-Fi Networking".


That said, you did mention that you've fixed this on Big Sur. I am still 
running Catalina. Considering Apple's history of dodgy initial releases 
of a new OS, I'll give Big Sur a few months (or a year) before I feel 
it's safe to upgrade. I'm already having to deal with Catalina as it is, 
which is why I have High Sierra installed on my old laptop for my 
weekend DJ streaming habit :-). OBS Studio seems to like High Sierra 
better than Catalina, hehe.


Many thanks for working on this - it's most appreciated!

Mark.

On 11/10/20 16:30, J. Hellenthal wrote:

Hey Mark,

Went through a bunch of tests here. Seems I’ve cleared up the matter on this macOS[1] Big 
Sur at least by disabling Wi-Fi Networking under “Location Services -> System Services 
-> Wi-Fi Networking [2]”. It seems at least from perspective that something changed 
there and causes the Mac to scan more aggressively when more than one access point 
(generally speaking your SSID & SSID + 5G) has been logged at a location as 
accessible. This same thing could be observed at least on my system while having those 
settings turned off, bluetooth on and location services enabled and opening (Wi-Fi 
Explorer[3]) which puts the interface into “monitor mode” which seems to be causing the 
contention somewhere. After those changes keep in mind I had to restart from a full 
shutdown to get to some real clean ms traffic to the router and I prefer to be connected 
to 5Ghz before 2.4Ghz.


1. Darwin Kernel Version 20.1.0: Thu Oct 29 05:35:40 PDT 2020; 
root:xnu-7195.50.5~4/RELEASE_X86_64
2. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m3xm3fpoziwe01d/Screen%20Shot%202020-11-10%20at%2008.20.08.png?dl=0
3. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wifi-explorer/id494803304?mt=12



On Nov 5, 2020, at 00:43, Mark Tinka  wrote:

Just an update on this re: the Bluetooth.

I had my AirPods paired previously for single use. I don't use them on the 
laptop (there is some latency), so I prefer the wired earphones. But it seems 
like Bluetooth was aggressively scanning for them. After removing them from the 
system, the scanning remained, but reduced significantly.

So looking at Console again, every so often, Bluetooth is scanning the network on behalf 
of the "sharingd" process.

sharingd is a sharing daemon that supports features such as AirDrop, Handoff, 
Instant Hotspot, Shared Computers and Remote Disc in Finder.

Still keeping Bluetooth off, however.

Mark.

Fwd: [apnic-talk] APRICOT 2021 PC call for volunteers

[Mark Tinka]

FYI.

Mark.


 Forwarded Message 
Subject:[apnic-talk] APRICOT 2021 PC call for volunteers
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 20:37:10 +1000
From:   Philip Smith 
Reply-To:   APRICOT PC Chairs 
Organization:   PFS Internet Development Pty Ltd
To: apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net
CC: APRICOT PC Chairs 



Hi everyone,

As you will no doubt be aware, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APRICOT 
2021 has moved on-line.  It will still be hosted, as planned, by PhNOG, 
the Philippine Network Operator Group. The new format means a reduction 
in the schedule but retaining the high quality and high relevancy of the 
content offered over the years.


The APRICOT 2021 Programme Committee is responsible for the solicitation 
and selection of suitable presentation and tutorial content for the 
APRICOT 2021 conference (https://2021.apricot.net/).


The APRICOT PC Chairs are now seeking nominations from the community to 
join the APRICOT 2021 PC to assist with the development of the programme 
for APRICOT 2021.


Eligible PC candidates are those who have attended APRICOT conferences 
in the recent past, have broad technical knowledge of Internet 
operations, and have reasonable familiarity with the format of APRICOT 
conferences.  Having constructive opinions and ideas about how the 
programme content might be improved is of high value too.  PC members 
are expected to work actively to solicit content and review submissions 
for technical merit.  The PC meets by conference call, weekly in 
frequency during the three months prior to APRICOT.


If you are interested in joining the PC and meet the above eligibility 
criteria, please send a brief note to "pc-chairs at apricot.net".  The 
note should include affiliation (if any) and contact details (including 
e-mail address), and a brief description of why you would make a good 
addition to the PC.


The PC Chairs will accept nominations received by 17:00 UTC+8 on Monday 
23rd November 2020, and will announce the new PC shortly thereafter.


Many thanks!

Mark Tinka, Marijana Novakovic & Philip Smith
APRICOT 2021 PC Chairs
--
___
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

RE: Phoenix-IX Contact

[Marcus Josephson]

I tried to get a link to PHX-IX for months. Never heard back from them, went 
with Digital Realty Phoenix


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Kate 
Gerry
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:06 AM
To: Matt Hoppes 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org list 
Subject: Re: Phoenix-IX Contact

Matt,

I am running on a huge assumption here, but I think Phoenix-IX runs on donated 
infrastructure. From what I recall, there was only an NRC to join Phoenix-IX.

And in regards to Walt's suggestion, it looks like HE already started one with 
Stellar Technologies. https://48ix.net but it is only in a single facility. So 
until that IX grows, both in peers and footprint, I'm stuck on Phoenix-IX.

I have wondered what happens if a participant storms the IX. Will somebody 
appear? Because attempts to reach their NOC/peering handles has resulted in a 
lack of response.

I also wonder how the other Ninja-IX exchanges are running, I haven't heard 
anything about them, is there the same lack of communication? Or do those have 
a local staff?

—
Kate


On Nov 10, 2020, at 06:15, Matt Hoppes 
mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> 
wrote:

How is the IX still running?  Surely someone must be paying colo rent?

On 11/10/20 9:03 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Always a good time for network operators to consider the risks of having any 
one person as a single point of failure for something kind of important:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
Disaster recovery and continuity of business plans should always include the 
concept of what if some percentage of the key team members were to be suddenly 
unavailable permanently (the Malaysian airline incident, for example).
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:08 PM Kate Gerry mailto:kge...@outlook.com>>
 wrote:
   Is there anybody else even there? I thought that it was all Paul's show!
   If I was able to (as in, had access to), I would offer to help/run
   with the IX. I may live in California, but it's a realistic car trip
   back and forth to Phoenix.
   --
   Kate

   On Nov 9, 2020, at 17:58, Mike Hammett mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:

   Paul's LinkedIn seems to show that he checked out in April. Let me
   know if you have any success reaching anyone there.



   -
   Mike Hammett
   Intelligent Computing Solutions 
   

   Midwest Internet Exchange 
   

   The Brothers WISP 
   

   
   *From:*"Kate Gerry" mailto:kge...@outlook.com>>
   *To:*"Bill Woodcock" mailto:wo...@pch.net>>
   *Cc:*nanog@nanog.org 
   *Sent:*Monday, November 9, 2020 5:44:42 PM
   *Subject:*Re: Phoenix-IX Contact

   Just a heads-up, I never heard a word from anybody at Phoenix-IX.

   Is there anybody still running the IX? Or is it just on autopilot?
   It'd be nice if anybody had some information on whatever happened
   to Paul. Hopefully he is okay!

   --
   Kate

   On Sep 14, 2020, at 13:33, Kate Gerry mailto:kge...@outlook.com>> wrote:

   Thank Bill! I've been trying to reach Paul for ages now,
   hopefully he pops back up again. We want to upgrade.

   On an unrelated note, it looks like somebody has their ticket
   system subscribed to the list... Awesome.

   *From: *Dating Support mailto:dating.supp...@csvwebsupport.com>>
   *Subject: **[#WQV-291-95071]: Phoenix-IX Contact*
   *Date: *September 14, 2020 at 12:43:20 PDT
   *To: *kge...@outlook.com 

   *Reply-To: 
*dating.supp...@csvwebsupport.com
   

   Kate Gerry,

   Thank you for contacting us. This is an automated response
   confirming the receipt of your ticket. Our team will get
   back to you within 24 hours.


   --
   Kate


   On Sep 14, 2020, at 12:48, Bill Woodcock mailto:wo...@pch.net>> wrote:



   On Sep 14, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Kate Gerry
   mailto:kge...@outlook.com

Re: Passive Wave Primer

[Neil J. McRae]

+1 on this – we use it internally to manage two optical platforms 
(international vs local) and even that has caused some challenges!

From: NANOG 
Date: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 at 22:03
To: Brandon Martin 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Passive Wave Primer
>From the perspective of a large carrier, spectrum is an operational nightmare. 
>At a former $dayjob it was an “offering” in the sense that we had deployed it, 
>told customers we offered it but wouldn’t actually deploy it anymore.