Re: AT is suspending broadband data caps for home internet customers due to coronavirus

[Lyle Giese]

Comcast announced the same and also lowering or eliminating fees for low 
income homes in the short term.


Lyle Giese

LCR Computer Services, Inc.


On 2020-03-12 17:34, Jared Mauch wrote:

I do worry if the broadband networks have the capacity. WFH traffic is usually 
different from regular consumer traffic. My neighbors were telling me about the 
mandatory work from home they had today and how the VPN struggled to work.

To those upgrading those things, keep at it. You will get there.

Sent from my iCar


On Mar 12, 2020, at 6:29 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:


The first data cap waiver I've seen due to coronavirus.  I expect other ISPs to 
quickly follow.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v74qzb/atandt-suspends-broadband-usage-caps-during-coronavirus-crisis

AT is the first major ISP to confirm that it will be suspending all broadband 
usage caps as millions of Americans bunker down in a bid to slow the rate of 
COVID-19 expansion. Consumer groups and a coalition of Senators are now pressuring 
other ISPs to follow suit.

Re: Reminiscing our first internet connections (WAS) Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that

[Lyle Giese]

The fudge was required because of the use of copper based T1's. The 
early implementation required a min of 1's density for those old 
repeaters to work properly(AMI, Alt Mark Inversion). Conversion to fiber 
between telco offices allowed them to drop SF and AMI to ESF. Fiber 
equipment dropped the min 1 density to function properly.


Lyle

On 2020-01-27 06:11, Rob Pickering wrote:
Wasn't the 56/64k thing a result of CAS (bit robbed) signalling which 
was a fudge AT did to transport signalling information in-band on 
T1s by stealing the low order bit for OOB signalling (it wasnt 
actually every low order bit, but meant you had to throw away every 
low order bit as CPE didn't know which ones were "corrupted" by the 
carrier).
Proper ISDN was always 64kbit/s clear path with separate D channels 
carried OOB end to end, away from the B channel data.


On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Mark Andrews > wrote:


The hardware support was 2B+D but you could definitely just use a
single B.   56k vs 64k depended on where you where is the world
and which style of ISDN the telco offered.


-- 
Mark Andrews


> On 27 Jan 2020, at 22:32, Bryan Holloway mailto:br...@shout.net>> wrote:
>
> I didn't think one could get a single 'B' channel over ISDN ...
but I could be mistaken.
>
> In my early ISP days, ISDN was 2 x 64k (full-rate) 'B' channels
and a 16k 'D' channel for signaling.
>
>
>> On 1/26/20 5:58 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>> IIRC that 64k was in fact 56k with 8k for overhead.
>> I had one, and it would kick in a second channel if you pushed
it, for a whopping 112k. Metered, came out to about $500/mo.
>> Joly
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:26 PM Ben Cannon mailto:b...@6by7.net> >>
wrote:
>>    I started what became 6x7 with a 64k ISDN line.  And 9600
baud modems…
>>    in ’93 or so.  (I was a child, in Jr High…)
>>    -Ben.
>>    -Ben Cannon
>>    CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
>> b...@6by7.net  >
>>>    On Jan 24, 2020, at 3:21 PM, b...@theworld.com

>>>    > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    On January 24, 2020 at 08:55 aar...@gvtc.com

>>>    > (Aaron
Gould) wrote:
    Thanks Jared, When I reminisce with my boss he reminds me that
    this telco/ISP here initially started with a 56kbps internet
    uplink , lol
>>>
>>>    Point of History:
>>>
>>>    When we, The World, first began allowing the general public
onto the
>>>    internet in October 1989 we actually had a (mildly shared*) T1
>>>    (1.544mbps) UUNET link. So not so bad for the time. Dial-up
customers
>>>    shared a handful of 2400bps modems, we still have them.
>>>
>>>    * It was also fanned out of our office to a handful of
Boston-area
>>>    customers who had 56kbps or 9600bps leased lines, not many.
>>>
>>>    --            -Barry Shein
>>>
>>>    Software Tool & Die    | b...@theworld.com
>>>    >        
   | http://www.TheWorld.com
>>>    
>>>    Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       |
800-THE-WRLD
>>>    The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>> --
>> ---
>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> --
>> -



--
--
Rob Pickering, r...@pickering.org 

Re: Reminiscing our first internet connections (WAS) Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that

[Lyle Giese]

64k vs 56k was the result of changing T1 framing from SF to ESF. SF 
utilized AMI(Alt Mark Inversion) required for copper T1 lines between 
Central Offices.  SF(Super Frame) robbed bits for signalling and limited 
each voice channel to 56k.  Conversion to fiber between TELCO offices 
allowed the conversion of SF to ESF, which dropped the AMI requirement 
and the resultant bit robbing, allowing 64k throughput per voice channel.


In other words, the limitation was in the inter-office T1's and the 
conversion of to fiber between TELCO offices cleared that hurdle.


Lyle Giese

LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 2020-01-27 05:57, Mark Andrews wrote:

The hardware support was 2B+D but you could definitely just use a single B.   
56k vs 64k depended on where you where is the world and which style of ISDN the 
telco offered.


-- Mark Andrews

On 27 Jan 2020, at 22:32, Bryan Holloway  wrote:

I didn't think one could get a single 'B' channel over ISDN ... but I could be 
mistaken.

In my early ISP days, ISDN was 2 x 64k (full-rate) 'B' channels and a 16k 'D' 
channel for signaling.



On 1/26/20 5:58 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
IIRC that 64k was in fact 56k with 8k for overhead.
I had one, and it would kick in a second channel if you pushed it, for a 
whopping 112k. Metered, came out to about $500/mo.
Joly
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:26 PM Ben Cannon mailto:b...@6by7.net>> wrote:
I started what became 6x7 with a 64k ISDN line.   And 9600 baud modems…
in ’93 or so.  (I was a child, in Jr High…)
-Ben.
-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
b...@6by7.net  <mailto:b...@6by7.net>

On Jan 24, 2020, at 3:21 PM,b...@theworld.com
<mailto:b...@theworld.com>  wrote:


On January 24, 2020 at 08:55aar...@gvtc.com
<mailto:aar...@gvtc.com>  (Aaron Gould) wrote:

Thanks Jared, When I reminisce with my boss he reminds me that
this telco/ISP here initially started with a 56kbps internet
uplink , lol

Point of History:

When we, The World, first began allowing the general public onto the
internet in October 1989 we actually had a (mildly shared*) T1
(1.544mbps) UUNET link. So not so bad for the time. Dial-up customers
shared a handful of 2400bps modems, we still have them.

* It was also fanned out of our office to a handful of Boston-area
customers who had 56kbps or 9600bps leased lines, not many.

---Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die|b...@theworld.com
<mailto:b...@theworld.com>  |http://www.TheWorld.com
<http://www.theworld.com>
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility |*oo*

--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--
-

Re: Research project on blacklists

[Lyle Giese]

This is one of the best and funnest emails I have seen in a long time!

Thank you, Anne!

Lyle Giese

On 8/8/2019 2:50 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:

RESEARCHER'S NOTES, DAY 1:

I and my colleagues have observed the operators and patrons of blacklists in 
the wild.  They appear to be hostile and combative.  We hypothesize that they 
will have trouble mating.

---

Re: listserv hosed? [Was: Fwd: nanog.org mailing list memberships reminder]

[Lyle Giese]

Groundhog day AGAIN!

Lyle

On 2/1/2018 10:07 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:

On 2018-02-01 22:59, Paul Ferguson wrote:


Started getting a series of these just now from the past. :-)


Same here. The  821 headers show Received: to be "now", while the RFC
822 headers have a Date of first of  where Month started in
August 2017.

Suspect something got reset and the list server is just catching up with
the monthly reminders.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Lyle Giese]

It leaves more data available to use within your data plan, but may 
reduce bandwidth available to you to actually use.  In other words, you 
may find your billed usage unusable due to lack of usable bandwidth.


'Oh it's free, I will set my phone to stream all Monty Python movies 
continuously.'


But I think this answer is more in line with the intent of your 
question, why would someone want to try to startup a new service that 
doesn't fit within the guidelines of these 'free' services.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 11/20/2015 12:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:

​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I
missing?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote:


It's not. And that's the point.

This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
slows growth.

Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
(bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
application bandwidth caps) is desirable.

Re: Recent trouble with QUIC?

[Lyle Giese]

On 09/27/15 16:16, Saku Ytti wrote:

On 25 September 2015 at 16:20, Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey,


I remained very disappointed in how google has gone about quic.

They are dismissive of network operators concerns (quic protocol list and
ietf), cause substantial outages, and have lost a lot of good will in the
process

Here's your post mortem:

RFO: Google unilaterally deployed a non-standard protocol to our production
environment, driving up helpdesk calls x%

After action: block udp 80/443 until production ready and standard ratified
use deployed.


I find this attitude sad. Internet is about freedom. Google is using
standard IP and standard UDP over Internet, we, the network engineers
shouldn't care about application layer. Lot of companies run their own
protocols on top of TCP and UDP and there is absolutely nothing wrong
with that. Saying this shouldn't happen and if it does, those packets
should be dropped is same as saying innovation shouldn't happen.
Getting new IETF standard L4 protocol will take lot of time, and will
be much easier if we first have experience on using it, rather than
build standard and then hope it works without having actual data about
it.

QUIC, MinimaLT and other options for new PKI based L4 protocol are
very welcome. They offer compelling benefits
- mobility, IP address is not your identity (say hello to 'mosh' like
behaviour for all applications)
- encryption for all applications
- helps with buffer bloat (BW estimation and packet pacing)
- helps with performance/congestion (packet loss estimation and FEC
for redundant data, so dropped packet can be reconstructed be
receiver)
- fixes amplification (response is smaller than request)
- helps with DoS (proof of work) (QUIC does not have this)
- low latency session establishment (Especially compared to TLS/HTTP)

I'm sure I've omitted many others.




There are advantages to QUIC or Google would not be trying to work on it 
and implement it.


The problem is that it has been added to a popular application(Chrome) 
which many/most end users know little to nothing about QUIC and what the 
implications are when a version in Chrome is defective and harmful to 
the Internet.


Part of freedom is to minimize the harm and I think that is where the 
parties replying to this thread diverge.  A broken change that causes 
harm should have/could have been tested better before releasing it to 
the public on the Internet.


Or if a bad release is let loose on the Internet, how does Google 
minimize the harm?


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Any Verizon datacenter techs about?

[Lyle Giese]

It looks more like a standard telco central office, not a data center.

Lyle

On 06/24/15 13:46, John Musbach wrote:

Hello,

I'm a techie that recently moved to South Jersey for a tech job. To my
astonishment, I discovered that there appears to be a Verizon
datacenter near my house that has colocation:

http://imgur.com/a/PdGno

It's in Somers Point, NJ. While I could not find an address on the
building, it is on the corner of Bethel Rd and N New Rd. I've tried
walking around back to see if I could talk to anyone about colocation
but could not find anyone outside. I've also tried calling Verizon but
support wasn't very helpful. My question is, what does it take to get
some colocation space inside of that building? Me and my roommate both
have a 1u we'd like to rack and having it racked in a datacenter
walking distance from where we live would be awesome. What we'd need:

2u space
4 power drops for the servers (2 psu per server)
2 100Mbps ethernet drops with static IPs

I'm not sure if that's too little to ask for colocation or not, but
that really is all we'd need. Is there anyone about that knows what
we'd need to acquire such space, cost, badging, etc? If so, can you
please reply offlist?

Thanks,

John M

Comodo

[Lyle Giese]

This is a one off message and I will not reply to any public posts. But 
it's gotten to the point that I am quite angry by the underhanded sales 
tactics by a company that I once considered reputable.


I have available discounted SSL certificates via a small reseller 
account with SRSPlus.  I get a very good price via this service on 
Thawte's ssl certs.


Comodo sales droids are now calling my customers to offer them 
discounted SSL certificate renewals.  However they are quoting them 
retail prices.  I am paying well under posted retail prices and 
generally sell them to my customers at about 50% of what Comodo is 
claiming to be a discounted price.


Comodo is cold calling business owners that have no idea what a SSL cert 
is for a website and trying to sell them something they know nothing 
about.  My customers contact me for their website needs and I take it 
from there.  I bill them after I pay for the cert via my resellers 
discount program.


Enough.  Just fair warning to rest of this list about this practice from 
Comodo.  End of subject from me.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: UVerse question

[Lyle Giese]

The second half is easy.  Do it your self.  Turn the 2wire router into a 
transparent device and put your own router in doing the PPPoE for you.  
pfSense and M0n0wall support IPv6.


I am in ATT territory, but don't use them for Internet.(I use the local 
cable company). But I know that several of my customers do have IPv6 
connectivity already both on DSL and uVerse here in the Chicago Suburan 
area.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 02/08/15 16:48, TR Shaw wrote:

Any suggestions on what to tell ATT to get IPv6 added to a current account and 
upgrade a 2wire router to 4wire with halfway decent performance and capability?

Any and all help would be appreciated.

Tom

Gmail admin help requested

[Lyle Giese]

I have discovered that some emails are disappearing inside gmail.

I have logs of one such email that disappeared. It shows the 250 reply
from google, but email doesn't get to inbox or spam filter.

Looking for assistance from Gmail.

Thanks,
Lyle Giese LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Chicago Amazon

[Lyle Giese]

Interesting traceroute from Comcast in Chicago:

Goes from Chicago to Seattle to New York inside the Comcast network.

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

traceroute to www.amazon.com (176.32.98.166), 30 hops max, 40 byte 
packets using UDP
 1  lancomcast.lcrcomputer.com (192.168.250.252)  0.165 ms   0.142 ms   
0.139 ms
 2  c-98-206-192-1.hsd1.il.comcast.net (98.206.192.1)  9.226 ms 15.067 
ms   13.166 ms
 3  te-0-3-0-13-sur03.mchenry.il.chicago.comcast.net (68.85.131.5) 
12.778 ms   11.690 ms   10.688 ms
 4  te-2-3-0-1-ar01.elmhurst.il.chicago.comcast.net (68.86.197.165) 
16.734 ms te-2-3-0-0-ar01.elmhurst.il.chicago.comcast.net 
(69.139.235.109)  16.518 ms te-3-1-ur01.mchenry.il.chicago.comcast.net 
(68.87.210.61)  19.275 ms
 5  he-1-6-0-0-11-cr01.seattle.wa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.92.33) 
18.112 ms   12.269 ms   14.449 ms
 6  be-10406-cr01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.84.210) 19.087 
ms   18.882 ms   17.678 ms
 7  be-10206-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.225) 35.173 
ms   34.970 ms   36.902 ms
 8  c-eth-0-2-0-pe04.111eighthave.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.87.98)  
34.642 ms   34.394 ms   33.321 ms

 9  50.242.148.122 (50.242.148.122)  36.920 ms   35.969 ms   33.625 ms
10  54.240.229.84 (54.240.229.84)  33.564 ms   32.941 ms   36.129 ms
11  54.240.228.186 (54.240.228.186)  43.054 ms 54.240.228.204 
(54.240.228.204)  42.900 ms 54.240.228.202 (54.240.228.202)  41.204 ms
12  54.240.229.219 (54.240.229.219)  45.652 ms 54.240.229.221 
(54.240.229.221)  45.447 ms 54.240.229.223 (54.240.229.223)  44.213 ms
13  54.240.228.163 (54.240.228.163)  40.113 ms 54.240.228.161 
(54.240.228.161)  43.994 ms 54.240.228.181 (54.240.228.181)  43.778 ms
14  205.251.244.99 (205.251.244.99)  43.681 ms 205.251.244.91 
(205.251.244.91)  42.487 ms   46.121 ms
15  205.251.245.232 (205.251.245.232)  43.837 ms   43.749 ms 
205.251.245.226 (205.251.245.226)  43.723 msOn 12/07/14 10:24, Mike 
Hammett wrote:

Is anyone else seeming issues reaching Amazon through Zayo in Chicago?

8 37 ms 44 ms 27 ms 64.125.204.11.allocated.above.net [64.125.204.11]
9 28 ms 13 ms 44 ms ge-11-1-2.mpr2.ord6.us.above.net [64.125.172.81]
10 28 ms 46 ms 27 ms ae11.cr2.ord2.us.above.net [64.125.22.130]
11 95 ms 34 ms 41 ms ae11.cr1.ord2.us.above.net [64.125.20.245]
12 41 ms 54 ms 34 ms ae4.er1.ord7.us.above.net [64.125.28.50]
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.



Looks like HE is having difficulty as well.

7   20.243 ms   21.120 ms   19.500 ms   72.21.220.175 
205.251.244.93 72.21.220.183
8   97.293 ms   21.906 ms   22.774 ms   205.251.245.242 
72.21.222.157 205.251.245.53
9   *   *   *   -
10  *   *   *   -
11  *   *   *   -



Well, I guess unless they're dropping ICMP...



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

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Lyle Giese]

On 10/03/14 17:34, Michael Van Norman wrote:

My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.

Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.

I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
acceptable.

What constitutes defensive purposes?

Since this is unlicensed spectrum, I don't think there is anything one has
a right to defend :)

/Mike


If you charge for access and one person pays and sets up a rogue AP 
offering free WiFi to anyone in range.  I can see a defensive angle there.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Contact at NetSuite DNS operations?

[Lyle Giese]

I discovered that NetSuite's dns servers ens0  1 .netsuite.com are 
invisible from Comcast's business services in the Chicago area(limits of 
my testing abilities) but I can reach these same servers from a Linode 
virtual system in the Dallas, TX area.


Looks like it's been this way for at least two months.

If someone from NetSuite could say hi and look into it, I am sure it 
will help NetSuite more than me.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: SHDSL / Copper Loop testing

[Lyle Giese]

On 7/28/2014 1:25 PM, Mike wrote:

Howdy,

I'm looking for reccomendations for a copper-loop test set that 
can effectively troubleshoot SHDSL. I'm looking for more than 'yup, I 
got sync' - it would be very helpful to be able to see 
noise/interference as well as calculate loop length, check bridge 
taps, and any other kind of metallic testing that would help to 
identify and isolate loop troubles.


Thank you.

Mike-
Aside from the metrics from inside the modem, you are not going to get 
much more unless you have access to the telco's internal metallic 
testing equipment.


(I used to fix the CO based equipment that the telco used for that 
testing before I left in '98)


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Need trusted NTP Sources

[Lyle Giese]

Look back in the archives and see the problems that erupted when one of 
the big guys rebooted and came on line with bad time(tock.usno.navy.mil 
in Nov of 2012).  It was talked about in Outages and other lists at the 
time it happened.



On 02/09/14 14:56, Saku Ytti wrote:

On (2014-02-09 15:45 -0500), Jay Ashworth wrote:


If I'm locked to 2 coherent upstreams and one goes insane, I'm going to
know which one it is, because the other one will still match what I already
have running, no?

Or do I understand NTP less well than I think?

I don't think you can reasonably tell which of the two is the false ticker.
Andriy says your PC would blindly follow one who is in more agreement with
your local lock, and PC's have terrible oscillators (I don't know why, 5EUR
would buy LOT better oscillator).

Re: How big is the Internet?

[Lyle Giese]

On 08/14/13 15:00, Roy wrote:

On 8/14/2013 11:29 AM, Scott Howard wrote:

To paraphrase Douglas Adams...

The Internet is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly,
hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long 
way

down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space!

   Scott



So the correct answer is 42?





On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:


Researchers have complained for years about the lack of good
statistics about the internet for a couple fo decades, since the
end of NSFNET statistics.

Now finally we have the answer.  And we are still working on the correct 
question(if that's possible)!



--
Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin 1775

Re: Centurylink Outage Iowa

[Lyle Giese]

On 06/03/13 15:10, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:52:26 -0500, Kenny Kant said:

Can anyone from Centurylink confirm any large outage in Dubuque, Iowa area?

It's Dubuque, Iowa. How large can an outage there *be*? :)

(Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Hey, people in Galena, IL may well be interested! All phone and Internet 
goes back to Dubuque and then down to the Quad Cities. Besides the 
riverboat managers may be interested also.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: regions.com down??

[Lyle Giese]

Looks like ultradns is hosed.

If you ask pdns193.ultradns.net or .com for root, it sends back a non 
answer quickly.  But ask the same servers for www.walmart.com and they 
don't answer at all.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

ncc1701b:~ # dig +trace www.walmart.com

;  DiG 9.8.4-P1  +trace www.walmart.com
;; global options: +cmd
.   310180  IN  NS g.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS i.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS k.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS a.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS e.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS c.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS h.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS l.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS j.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS f.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS d.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS b.root-servers.net.
.   310180  IN  NS m.root-servers.net.
;; Received 512 bytes from 209.172.152.2#53(209.172.152.2) in 10 ms

com.172800  IN  NS i.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS g.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS d.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS a.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS l.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS h.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS e.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS c.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS j.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS b.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS m.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS f.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS k.gtld-servers.net.
;; Received 505 bytes from 198.41.0.4#53(198.41.0.4) in 122 ms

walmart.com.172800  IN  NS pdns193.ultradns.net.
walmart.com.172800  IN  NS pdns193.ultradns.com.
walmart.com.172800  IN  NS pdns193.ultradns.org.
walmart.com.172800  IN  NS pdns193.ultradns.info.
walmart.com.172800  IN  NS pdns193.ultradns.biz.
walmart.com.172800  IN  NS pdns193.ultradns.co.uk.
;; Received 325 bytes from 192.41.162.30#53(192.41.162.30) in 74 ms

Halts here and I ctrl-C out

ncc1701b:~ # dig @pdns193.ultradns.net

;  DiG 9.8.4-P1  @pdns193.ultradns.net
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 36432
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;.  IN  NS

;; Query time: 48 msec
;; SERVER: 156.154.65.193#53(156.154.65.193)
;; WHEN: Wed Dec 26 21:25:29 2012
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 17

ncc1701b:~ # dig @pdns193.ultradns.net www.walmart.com

;  DiG 9.8.4-P1  @pdns193.ultradns.net www.walmart.com
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
ncc1701b:

On 12/26/12 20:50, g...@1337.io wrote:

Looks like walmart.com is down as well .

http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.walmart.com

On 12/26/12 1:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:

But only over HTTP.  Working fine over HTTPS for me.

   Scott



On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Goldbard j...@2600hz.com wrote:


Http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/regions.com

Down.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 26, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Positively Optimistic 
positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com wrote:


Is http://www.regions.com down globally?

Re: Wired access to SMS?

[Lyle Giese]

On 10/09/12 14:35, William Herrin wrote:

Hi Folks,

I'm looking for a way to do wireline access to send and receive
cellular phone short message service (SMS) messages. Despite all my
google-fu, I have had limited luck finding anyone that meets my needs,
so I'm hoping someone here has found the path through. My main
criteria are:


1. Low quantity, high reliability. I'll want a few dozen phone numbers
and effectively I'll be sending to and receiving from phones I own.
2. Wireline delivery to Honolulu and Northern Virginia. Dynamically
move numbers between the two locations for failover purposes.
3. U.S. based carrier. Tying in to the SMS system via Europe isn't
acceptable to my customer.
4. Solution must reach phones on all U.S. cellular carriers.
5. Price is a very distant fifth criteria to the preceding four.

I can consider Internet based systems where the provider uses U.S.
based facilities and ties in to a U.S. phone network, provided that my
standards of reliability and redundancy are met by their
infrastructure.

Alternately, I can also consider a wireless carrier that can provide
two SIM-based phones with the same phone number for sending and
receiving SMS messages. I'd put the sims in a pair of modems and
manage deduplication of the received messages in software.


Has anybody had any luck with this kind of requirement? Which vendors
should I talk to and who at the vendor?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin


If these are your phones, you will be controlling the carrier.  If they 
are all one carrier, you can find out how to send to that carrier.  For 
other uses where you don't control the carrier, it becomes a nightmare 
and where you may want to get a service provider to do that for you.


Most carriers have a way to send messages directly to phones and I use a 
phone from one specific carrier that has access via modems(using TAP 
protocol and I use qpage(www.qpage.org)).  You can also use qpage via a 
public(but carrier specific) snpp server, but I have not had a need for 
that as I need/want off Internet delivery of messages to the carrier's 
network.


On the expensive side, lookup 'sms short code' and you will see 
information on how that works and more info on service providers in this 
area.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: You thought you had... wiring issues!!!

[Lyle Giese]

On 07/31/12 16:04, Network IPdog wrote:

Mates.

  


WiringIssues.jpg

  

  


Ephesians 4:32Cheers!!!

  


A password is like a... toothbrush  ;^)

Choose a good one, change it regularly and don't share it.

  



good one!  One question, what are those big cables with the big boot on 
them?

Postini/google email admin assistance requested

[Lyle Giese]

I run a smaller email filter service for clients and starting Saturday, 
we are experiencing heavy traffic aimed at one email account.  99% of 
the traffic is coming from obsmtp.com servers.


In the last 24 hrs, we have been getting over 1,000 attempts per hour to 
this account with a couple of peaks at 4,000 per hour.


Not sure if they can help but an offlist contact from them would be nice.

Sorry for the noise to the rest!

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Dear Linkedin,

[Lyle Giese]

On 06/09/12 15:43, Jay Ashworth wrote:

- Original Message -

From: Barry Sheinb...@world.std.com
A friend would print in block letters in the sig area of his credit
cards ASK FOR PHOTO ID. He said that almost always cashiers et al
would give a cursory glance like they were checking his signature and
say thank you and hand him back his card.

This seems like an altogether excellent time to haul out *this* old
chestnut:

   http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/

FWIW, My cards have always said SEE ID, and I get about a 40% or so hit
rate on that.  It's been odd recently, cause I sometimes forget, and the
privacy reflex kicks in and makes me want to say Why??  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra

My personal favorite is to ask if I spelled my name correctly?

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: the report from the spambox front

[Lyle Giese]

On 05/29/12 21:19, Randy Bush wrote:

as part of daily maint, where i read midnight logs from 20+ systems etc,
i scan my spambox to make sure nothing falls through, and indeed catch
one or two daily.  but the spam is a source of great amusement.  the
internet is an wondrous place.

the number of messages offering help for the serious bedbug problem has
been dropping off recently.  so there really is hope we are winning the
war on the bedbug front.  whew!

fedex has so many dell xps laptops in transit to me that storing them
looks to become a serious problem.  anyone with some space in a storage
locker near jimbocho?

zita would really like to take advantage of all the free lobsters, but
there is no red lobster we know of in tokyo [0].  as tokyo has
everything, i am sure i could find one.  but will they take an american
coupon?

a lot of russians are still trying to draw my attention to something
which is obviously important.  anyone out there read russian?  i hope it
is not something critical, like news on the bedbugs in moscow.

we would love to take advantage of all the great clearance sales on
fords, but the cost of garaging a car, especially a large one, in tokyo
is a bit steep.

randy, who has to run out to the accountant to keep up with all the
fraud monitoring reports on my bank accounts and credit cards in
the caymans.

How do you then escape all the Canadian Pharmacy ads with a business 
license in New Zealand sent via compromised free email accounts?


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: OWA blocked by China

[Lyle Giese]

On 03/27/12 09:16, Jim Gonzalez wrote:

Hello,

 One of my customers has workers in China. There outlook web
access is blocked by the China Firewall. I was just wondering if anyone had
this issue ? I have not tried any work arounds as of yet just gathering info


Thanks in advance

Jim Gonzalez



Common practice in China.  Typically the block comes and goes. Here 
today, gone tomorrow.


However if the OWA server is on a dynamic IP or you use a dynamic IP 
address service for ip  address resolution, then it will be blocked all 
the time by China.


It's just the way things are done over there.

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: OWA blocked by China

[Lyle Giese]

On 03/27/12 09:39, Leigh Porter wrote:

Are there any issues with general https there also?

--
Leigh



-Original Message-
From: Lyle Giese [mailto:l...@lcrcomputer.net]
Sent: 27 March 2012 15:39
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: OWA blocked by China

On 03/27/12 09:16, Jim Gonzalez wrote:

Hello,

  One of my customers has workers in China. There
outlook web access is blocked by the China Firewall. I was just
wondering if anyone had this issue ? I have not tried any work

arounds

as of yet just gathering info


Thanks in advance

Jim Gonzalez




Common practice in China.  Typically the block comes and goes. Here
today, gone tomorrow.

However if the OWA server is on a dynamic IP or you use a dynamic IP
address service for ip  address resolution, then it will be blocked all
the time by China.

It's just the way things are done over there.

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.


Not in general, it appears that most of the blocks seem to occur at the 
DNS level from my experience.  However we have seen blocks on port 80 or 
443 but infrequently.


I have had a customer with sales persons in China for about 10 years now 
and they are ones that are quick to complain.  So we have gone through 
the cycles of various blocks over the years.  But putting their in house 
server on a static IP address and getting their OWA server address 
resolution out of dynamic name resolution services seemed to help the most.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Comcast help in N Illinois

[Lyle Giese]

Have a customer that is having problems webbrowsing and need some 
offline assistance from someone at Comcast.


First glance, it looks like a proxy/web accelerator problem at Comcast.

Thanks,
Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Request to lease IP space, or things that make you want to go hmmmmm..

[Lyle Giese]

A quick Google search found:

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-January/023892.html

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 03/08/12 17:40, Matthew Huff wrote:

Just got an email today to our account associated with our legacy ARIN address space. A firm 
Precision Management of Texas is interested in subleasing some of our IP space for 
on-demand solutions for brand marketers and website promotion chiefly through email 
marketing.

The one thing clear within the large amount of marketing-speach is they want As is 
the nature of this business PM seeks to obtain as much diversity in the allocated IP 
space as possible, however the most important thing is the Subnets need to have no abuse 
history.

Anyone else get solicited?

They seem to be flexible We can take the IPs via GRE or BGP or other such tunneling 
solution to where you have them announced. Alternatively we can advertise them ourselves 
on our network, saving you the back-haul. As a third solution we can take a server on 
your network with the following specs:...


Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-460-4139

Re: Megaupload.com seized

[Lyle Giese]

On 01/21/12 12:38, George Bonser wrote:

that was reported.

But what -- *exactly* -- is an illegal file?

As Leo Bicknell astutely pointed out in this thread:

Also, when using a hashed file store, it's possible that
some uses are infringing and some are not.

The problem is going to be the thousands of people who have now lost their 
legitimate files, research data, personal recordings, etc. that they were using 
Megaupload to share.


http://torrentfreak.com/feds-please-return-my-personal-files-megaupload-120120/



Not that I would not be a bit miffed if personal files disappeared, but 
that's one of the risks associated with using a cloud service for file 
storage.  It could have been a fire, a virus erasing file, bankruptcy, 
malicious insider damage...  Doesn't matter, you lost access to legit 
content in the crossfire.


There is always a risk of losing access to cloud resources.  And for 
years, we always joked in my computer buddy circles, computers know when 
you don't have a backup.


It's your fault(not theirs) if that was your only copy.

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

[Lyle Giese]

Can we really push an IPv6 agenda for CDN's when IPv6 routing at high 
backend levels is still not complete?  I certainly don't have the 
'clout' to push that, but full routing between Cogent and HE needs to be 
fixed.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 09/08/11 10:04, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that the edge of 
Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is not just an ISP problem 
but one where content providers and services that is the users need to get from 
here to there in good order.

So

What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them?
What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once they are on 
IPv6 tails?

Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not do? 
should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from a CGN?
and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who pays?


Christian

On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:


On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, Leigh Porterleigh.por...@ukbroadband.com  wrote:





-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
To: Leigh Porter
Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?


Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more than 10

users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily had
around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted these
are all different kinds of users, it is just something that operational
experience will have to demonstrate.



Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444
level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not individual
users, so the term
users is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer site
may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.


Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will be

single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35 sessions
from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times. These are a
combination of individual users and home modems.


We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken and

locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station software
died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now..






I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around it at

the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release their /8
that is ;-)




The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and
widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less depends
on fragile NAT444.


Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on v6,

it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such as
Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the CDNs
to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4) which
again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.


Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on the

'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not have
to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts and
such.




What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals latency, v4
will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable latency.

Cb

--
Leigh


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__

Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

[Lyle Giese]

And these 'perceived' routing issues won't be noticed nor are they 
important to CDN's?


I know what my job is, but that may not matter to the CDN's.  Reading 
this thread, I wanted to mention another problem that I feel has an 
effect on this issue.


Lyle

On 09/08/11 11:22, Joel jaeggli wrote:

On 9/8/11 08:49 , Lyle Giese wrote:

Can we really push an IPv6 agenda for CDN's when IPv6 routing at high
backend levels is still not complete?  I certainly don't have the
'clout' to push that, but full routing between Cogent and HE needs to be
fixed.


It's your job to run your network such that you have connectivity to the
destinations your customers want to reach not Cogent's or HE's...


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 09/08/11 10:04, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that
the edge of Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is
not just an ISP problem but one where content providers and services
that is the users need to get from here to there in good order.

So

What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them?
What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once
they are on IPv6 tails?

Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not
do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from
a CGN?
and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who pays?


Christian

On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:


On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, Leigh Porterleigh.por...@ukbroadband.com
wrote:





-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
To: Leigh Porter
Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?


Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more than 10

users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily had
around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted
these
are all different kinds of users, it is just something that
operational
experience will have to demonstrate.



Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444
level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not
individual
users, so the term
users is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer site
may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.


Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will be

single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35
sessions
from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times. These
are a
combination of individual users and home modems.


We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken and

locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station software
died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now..






I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around it at

the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release
their /8
that is ;-)




The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and
widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less
depends
on fragile NAT444.


Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on v6,

it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such as
Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the
CDNs
to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4) which
again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.


Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on the

'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not
have
to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts and
such.




What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals
latency, v4
will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable latency.

Cb

--
Leigh


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__

Re: DNS: 8.8.8.8 won't resolve noaa.gov sites?

[Lyle Giese]

On 09/01/11 21:41, Jay Ashworth wrote:

[ Cross-posted to NANOG and Outages; replies to outages or outages-discussion;
I would set the header, but Zimbra sucks.  :-) ]

I've had my home box set to use 8.8.8.8 as its primary resolver, falling back
to the BBN anycast.

Sometime today, 8.8.8.8 appears to have stopped resolving www.noaa.gov and
www.nhc.noaa.gov:

;  DiG 9.7.3-P3  @8.8.8.8 www.noaa.gov
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 34999
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.noaa.gov.  IN  A

;; Query time: 33 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Thu Sep  1 22:38:11 2011
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 30

though it resolves Yahoo and Google and Akamai.com and everything else
I throw at it.

Digging noaa.gov at 4.2.2.1 returns what I expect.

Interesting, too, that Firefox 5.0 wouldn't DTRT, even though 4.2.2.1-3 were
the backup nameservers in my resolv.conf.

Road Runner Tampa Bay connection.

Can anyone confirm or deny?  Google DNS or NOAA people here, before I go ping
NOAA staff on Twitter?

Cheers,
-- jra


Jay,
wonder if this has anything to do with DNSSEC?  These records were 
resigned on Sept 2 at 08:50 GMT.  If the signature expired and they were 
late in resigning the records...


I just discovered a minor issue with dnssec tools and zonesigner in 
there.  Zonesigner defaults to a 30 day expiration and they recommend 
running it once a month.  What happens in months with 31 days?


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Removal from mailing list

[Lyle Giese]

Then some kids decided to take it over and discuss and trade commodore-64
juarez on it (and then, seeming to having a shred of clue, they were
harassed by others for help to get off the list) til we noticed and figured we
were abetting piracy, so we shut it down.

Ah those were the days. (nods to old nm-listers, be ye out there.)

/kc


Yep, the good ole days...  Back then I started my business doing chip 
level repairs on Commodore 64's.


You know you can buy a C-64 now?  Someone bought the name and created a 
PC in a case that looks identical to a C-64.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

Re: Free Ping services that test your servers Availability from the Internet

[Lyle Giese]

Michael Ruiz wrote:
 Hey folks,

  

 I had a situation recently that our network went down
 and our Network Monitoring software did not notify us that the network
 was down because the internet connection went down.  We had a problem
 with our carrier where they messed up on our /23(where our Network
 Monitoring software resides), when they did a maintenance.  What
 transpired is our /23 was no longer routing to us.  Is there a free ping
 internet service, or something that we can pay a company that just sends
 a ping to devices?  If they fail to respond, then an email is sent to
 us?  Thank you folks.

  

 M.A.R

 Senior Network Engineer

  

   
Let me ask this question from a different angle. Did you NMS notice the
issue? If so, does your software require Internet to notify you?

I use just a simple modem(remember those?GRIN), a pots line and qpage
to send 'out of band' notifications.

Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.