RE: XGS-PON/GPON vendor with PoE ONTs

[Travis Garrison]

I think Nokia has a few ONT's with POE 

Thank you
Travis Garrison


-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
chiel via NANOG
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 4:55 AM
To: list 
Subject: XGS-PON/GPON vendor with PoE ONTs

Hello,

I'm looking for a for a vendor that has XGS-PON/GPON ONT's with PoE ports 
(preferable 4).

Adtran and Calix don't seem any model that has PoE.

Zhone (DZS) has one but we don't like the CLI/config, to complex.

Huawei also has PoE models but we prefer not to use them.

Anybody knows any other bigger vendors that have PoE support?

Best regards,
Chiel

RE: registry for onmicrosoft[dot]com

[Travis Garrison]

This would be a company that has registered for an office365 account. Office 
365 company accounts are registered as companyname [dot] onmicrosoft [dot] com. 
You then add domain aliases if you want to use your own preferred domain name.

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Nicholas Warren
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:26 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: registry for onmicrosoft[dot]com

Is there a registry we can search to find the company behind a certain $domain 
[dot]onmicrosoft[dot] com domain?

Thanks,
Nich Warren

RE: Standard DC rack rail distance, front to back question

[Travis Garrison]

We have used these with great luck. Might be able to find some 1U rails instead 
of the standard 2U.

https://www.amazon.com/APC-SU032A-4-Post-Rackmount-Rails/dp/B7L3MX

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Chuck Church
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:52 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Standard DC rack rail distance, front to back question

Hey all.  Question about standard 4 post racks.  We bought some that are 
adjustable.  Unfortunately, the posts are very flimsy, as these are some fancy 
cabinets with spacing on the sides for vertical patch panels, etc.  We found 
that 2 post mounting of most Cisco devices (namely Cat 9500 1RU switches) are 
sagging quite bad.   We're used to the new server type rails that extend to 
support most reasonable distances front rails to back for 4 post mounting.  
However, for a Cisco ASA1001, there aren't rails, but rather front and back 
'ears' you use to hit both front and back posts.  These would appear to not 
have any adjustability, the front to back post distance would seem to need to 
match the ears, I assume they don't adjust placement on the router much.  Is 
there a 'standard' distance between front and back rails that devices usually 
adhere to?  Googling didn't find an answer readily.  These are 19" wide 
cabinets by the way.

Thanks,

Chuck

RE: IPv4 Subnet 23.151.232.0/24 blackholed?

[Travis Garrison]

We are able to see your range from Cogent and Hurricane Electric now. Just took 
time

Routes For: 23.151.232.0/24
Timestamp: 2023-04-26 11:27:07 UTC
  - Prefix: 23.151.232.0/24
- RPKI State: Not Verified
- AS Path: 6939 → 23470 → 23470 → 23470 → 23470
- Next Hop: 184.105.58.113
- Weight: 170
- Local Preference: 100
- MED: 0
- Communities:
- Originator:
- Peer: 216.218.253.50
- Age: 6 hours (Wed, 26 Apr 2023 05:01:41 UTC)

  - Prefix: 23.151.232.0/24
- RPKI State: Not Verified
- AS Path: 6939 → 23470 → 23470 → 23470 → 23470
- Next Hop: 184.105.92.241
- Weight: 170
- Local Preference: 100
- MED: 0
- Communities:
- Originator:
- Peer: 100.78.0.6
- Age: 6 hours (Wed, 26 Apr 2023 05:01:39 UTC)

  - Prefix: 23.151.232.0/24
- RPKI State: Not Verified
- AS Path: 174 → 3257 → 23470 → 23470 → 23470 → 23470
- Next Hop: 38.140.137.161
- Weight: 170
- Local Preference: 100
- MED: 10020
- Communities:
  - 174:21000
  - 174:22013
- Originator:
- Peer: 66.28.1.16
- Age: 3 hours (Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:57:05 UTC)

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
August Yang via NANOG
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:54 PM
To: Ryan Hamel ; Neel Chauhan ; 
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 Subnet 23.151.232.0/24 blackholed?


The range has only been announced for 2 hours. Just wait longer for filters to 
refresh as Ryan advised.
On 2023-04-25 10:49 p.m., Ryan Hamel wrote:
Neel,

Carriers rebuild their prefixes lists once or twice in a 24 hour period. 
Considering that you just got the block today and is in ReliableSite's AS-SET, 
you just got to be patient.

Having announcements propagated immediately either sounds like it happened a 
day after you gave them the LOA, or they have unfiltered transit circuits, 
which is worrisome.

Ryan

-- Original Message --
From "Neel Chauhan" 
To nanog@nanog.org
Date 4/25/2023 7:35:40 PM
Subject IPv4 Subnet 23.151.232.0/24 blackholed?


Hi,

I recently got the IPv4 allocation 23.151.232.0/24 from ARIN. I also had my 
hosting company ReliableSite announce it to the internet.

Right now, I can only access networks that peer with ReliableSite via internet 
exchanges, such as Google, CloudFlare, OVH, Hurricane Electric, et al.

It seems the Tier 1 ISPs (e.g. Lumen, Cogent, AT&T, et al.) are blackholing the 
IPv4 subnet 23.151.232.0/24. Could someone who works at a Tier 1 NOC please 
check and remove the blackhole if any exists?

Normally when ReliableSite announced my prior (then-leased) IPv4 space it gets 
propagated via BGP almost immediately. This time it's not going through at all.

Best,

Neel Chauhan
--
Best regards
August Yang

NetElastic

[Travis Garrison]

Anyone here running NetElastic? If so, what are your opinions on it. vBNG and 
CGNAT.

Thank you
Travis

RE: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all)

[Travis Garrison]

>On 3/8/23 5:35 AM, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>> Perhaps I should have started this topic with a very specific example:
>> 
>> - ISP A has a residential customer "Bob" in RFC6598 space
>> - ISP A CGNATs Bob if the destination is beyond it's own IP space
>> - ISP A doesn't CGNAT if the destination is within its IP space (as
>> explained in the OP, this means reducing state and logging)
>> - ISP A has a cloud customer "Alice" running mail/webservers, which is
>> of course using public IP address space
>> - when Bob access Alice's mail/webserver, the source IP will show
>> RFC6598 addressing
>> - if Alice filters RFC6598, Bob can't connect
>> - Alice should not drop RFC6598, it should threat RFC6598 just like
>> every other public IP subnet
>
>I argue that Alice should expect to not receive any traffic from 
>non-globally routed IPs UNLESS her cloud provider has informed her that 
>she should expect them.
>
I>'d say that they shouldn't send them to her without her acknowledgement 
>~> consent to receive them.

Exactly

We use CGNAT in our network unfortunately. We skip CGNAT for internal resources 
only, to reduce logging,  load, etc. but all outbound and/or customer to 
customer traffic goes through the CGNAT. Only public IP addresses are allowed 
to communicate between customers.

Travis

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

[Travis Garrison]

I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANOG members

Thank you
Travis Garrison



-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Dave 
Taht
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:25 PM
To: Tim Howe 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I am going to attend the WISPA conference in New Orleans next week.
(anyone going)

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Travis Garrison]

In my location, I can get 1.5M from CenturyLink. That is the only hardwired 
option. Typical speeds was around 700K. I spent the money and installed my own 
180ft tower and a microwave connection to a bigger town that I could get a 
fiber circuit at. Now we have linked up several other smaller towns through 
wireless links and providing a better service than what is there.

Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Josh 
Luthman
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Brandon Svec 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone complaining 
about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 meg".  Comcast 
was the most hated company and yet they factually had better speeds (possibly 
in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
>street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?

I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what 
most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was close 
was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider that in 
town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember 
if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even a 
passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows how hit 
or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the 
houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could have 
reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the field has no 
such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.  Of 
course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are 
continually being added and upgraded.
Brandon Svec


On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher 
mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Can you provide examples?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG

Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor, 
MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara and 
Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the same 
400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara Falls.

This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a 
long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as you 
asked for.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
>There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off 
>from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

Can you provide examples?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:


> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka 
> mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>
> If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband connections" 
> actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the back of the 
> "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>
> I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
> "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in rural 
> America still have no or poor Internet access.
>
> Mark.

ROFLMAO…

People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know at 
least have GPON or better.

Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to 
be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.

Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
treatment no matter what we do.

There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off 
from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

Owen

RE: Quantifying the customer support and impact of cgnat for residential ipv4

[Travis Garrison]

We have 10,000+ customers and by default everyone is behind CGNAT. Around 25 
customers have asked for a dedicated public IP address and we usually just give 
them one free of charge. For our case, very low percentage actually request one.

Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Eric 
Kuhnke
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 6:18 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org list 
Subject: Quantifying the customer support and impact of cgnat for residential 
ipv4

Looking for anecdotal examples of the following:

If you put N number of individual DHCP client residential broadband customers 
behind cgnat for ipv4, what percent of customers contact support and become a 
support/troubleshooting case later.

And what percent of customers have a significant problem with it, to the extent 
that they either need to be offered a $5-10/mo extra /32 dedicated real 
address, or possibly cancel?

Hopefully on sample sizes of 5000 or more.

All else assuming that the customers are also dual stack v4/v6 and can reach v6 
things normally without any of that traffic going through the cgnat.

RE: Anyone else getting the 'spam' bomb threat?

[Travis Garrison]

Yup, same here

Travis
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Shawn L via NANOG
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 7:25 AM
To: Matt Hoppes 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: RE: Anyone else getting the 'spam' bomb threat?


we received it as well

-Original Message-
From: "Matt Hoppes" 
mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:21am
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Anyone else getting the 'spam' bomb threat?

I've now heard from several operators - our selves included - about
getting an e-mail bomb threat to our datacenters asking for $5,000 USD
or the "bomb will be detonated".

Is this being seen on a wide spread e-mail blast to the RIR contacts, or
am I just unlucky to know like 6 other data center folks who have also
gotten this e-mail?

It seems like a very odd/bizarre spam/threat campaign which would
carry significant jail time.

RE: HBO Max Contact

[Travis Garrison]

We have just ran into this issue. We contacted Digital Elements and they let us 
know the issue is with Wind Scribe VPN service. Wind Scribe will randomly 
select client IP addresses and use that as the host IP. Of course, when they do 
that, it gets our IP addresses blocked. We have never implemented any kind of 
filtering, etc. on our network, we prefer to leave it open for the customers to 
use. Anyone have a good idea on how to prevent this from happening?

Thank you
Travis Garrison

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Lukas Tribus
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:27 PM
To: Kevin McCormick 
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: HBO Max Contact

Hello Kevin,


On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 16:57, Kevin McCormick  wrote:
>
> HBO did respond to contact form page on website.
>
>
> They referred us to Digital Elements.

It's IP geolocation done right, as per the white-paper [1]:

- distrusting WHOIS data
- distrusting ISP provided data
- not providing any check/demo page
- not providing any contact information for victims (end users or ISPs)
- amazing real time updates based on ... things:

> Digital Element utilizes patented web-spidering technology and 20+ 
> proprietary methods to triangulate the location, connection speed, and 
> many other characteristics associated with an IP address. By combining this 
> "inside-out" infrastructure analysis with "outside-in"
> user location feedback gleaned from a network of commercial partners 
> to improve and validate its response at a hyperlocal level 
> (city/postcode/ZIP+4), Digital Element can identify where the user 
> actually accesses the Internet down to the ISP’s end-point equipment.
> [...]
> "With such an extensive customer network performing more than 10 
> trillion IP lookups per month, the company is able to pick up IP 
> address reallocations the instant they occur, ensuring that data remains 
> highly current and accurate."


And just to reiterate one more time:

> By combining this "inside-out" infrastructure analysis with "outside-in"
> user location feedback gleaned from a network of commercial partners 
> to improve and validate its response at a hyperlocal level 
> (city/postcode/ZIP+4), Digital Element can identify where the user 
> actually accesses the Internet down to the ISP’s end-point equipment.

and again:

> the company is able to pick up IP address reallocations the instant 
> they occur


's all good, man!


[1] 
https://www.digitalelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IPGEO-myths-facts.pdf

RE: Email and Web Hosting

[Travis Garrison]

Why not migrate them to a cpanel instance?

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Steve Saner
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 2:27 PM
To: Bryan Fields 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Email and Web Hosting

The current platform is a custom collection of open source software, smtp, 
imap, pop, webmail. Web hosting is a basic LAMP stack all php 5.2 or greater. 
There is no interest in growing these services.


On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:02 AM Bryan Fields 
mailto:br...@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
On 7/6/21 10:41 AM, Steve Saner wrote:
> I hope this isn't too far off topic for this list.
>
> We acquired a small ISP a couple years ago that has its roots in the "local
> ISPs" of the 90s. This ISP is still hosting email and web services for
> customers both on company domains as well as customer domains. There is
> some decent revenue coming from these services, but cost of maintenance is
> becoming a challenge. We are looking at migrating to another platform or
> completely discontinuing those services.

Question, what platform(s) are you running now?  What must you provide for
email, SMTP, IMAP, webmail, groupware, etc?  Do you have any intention of
growing this?

For the websites, what do they need?  Are you running any old PHP 3/4 stuff?
You can setup a control panel, but if you're not running one now, and you're
not going to expand it, why not just cap it until it becomes unprofitable?

I'm a proponent of hosting my own email, it's not that hard and any ISP should
be able to do it.

--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net


--

Steve Saner | Senior Network Engineer

ideatek INTERNET FREEDOM FOR ALL

Cell: 620-860-9433 | 111 Old Mill Lane, Buhler, KS 67522 | 
ideatek.com

This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages 
attached to it may contain confidential information. If the reader of this 
message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not or believe you may not be the intended recipient, 
please advise the sender immediately by return email or by calling 
620.543.5026. Then, please take all steps necessary to permanently delete the 
email and all attachments from your computer system. No trees were affected by 
this transmission – though a few billion photons were mildly inconvenienced.

RE: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Travis Garrison]

In my opinion, if a city is installing a fiber network for other providers to 
use, they need to plan on active-e only. Let it be up to the providers back at 
the head end to either plug the individual strands into a switch for active-e 
or into a splitter for a PON type setup. 

Thank you
Travis Garrison

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:00 AM
To: Masataka Ohta 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections)

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a 
> cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, 
> which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of 
> subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
>
> Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop 
> cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using 
> dedicated cores of single star.
>
> On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a 
> cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one 
> PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures 
> to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.

My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the cheapest 
by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid 
concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

RE: link monitoring

[Travis Garrison]

We use LibreNMS and smokeping to monitor latency and dropped packets on all our 
links and setup alerts if they go over a certain threshold. We are working on a 
script to automatically reroute traffic based on the alerts to route around the 
bad link to give us time to fix it.

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:39 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: link monitoring

Hello

We had a 100G link that started to misbehave and caused the customers to notice 
bad packet loss. The optical values are just fine but we had packet loss and 
latency. Interface shows FEC errors on one end and carrier transitions on the 
other end. But otherwise the link would stay up and our monitor system 
completely failed to warn about the failure. Had to find the bad link by 
traceroute (mtr) and observe where packet loss started.

The link was between a Juniper MX204 and Juniper ACX5448. Link length 2 meters 
using 2 km single mode SFP modules.

What is the best practice to monitor links to avoid this scenarium? What 
options do we have to do link monitoring? I am investigating BFD but I am 
unsure if that would have helped the situation.

Thanks,

Baldur

RE: DoD IP Space

[Travis Garrison]

I have personally seen the issue with streaming from a Samsung cell phone and 
the Disney+ app to a Google chrome cast and a regular not-smart TV. 

Travis

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Doug 
Barton
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:30 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space

The KB indicates that the problem is with the "LG TV WebOS 3.8 or above."

Doug

(not speaking for any employers, current or former)


On 1/22/21 12:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Disney should hire some proper developers and QA team.
> 
> RFC 1123 instructed developers to make sure your products handled multi-homed 
> servers properly and dealing with one of the addresses being unreachable is 
> part of that.  It’s not like the app can’t attempt to a stream from the IPv6 
> address and if there is no response in 200ms start a parallel attempt from 
> the IPv4 address.  If the IPv6 stream succeeds drop the IPv4 stream  Happy 
> Eyeballs is just a specific case of multi-homed servers.
> 
> QA should have test scenarios where the app has a dual stack network and the 
> servers are silently untraceable over one then the other transport.  It isn’t 
> hard to do.  Dealing with broken networks is something every application 
> should do.
> 

RE: DoD IP Space

[Travis Garrison]

What's all your opinion when company's such as Disney actively recommend 
disabling IPv6? They are presenting it as IPv6 is blocking their app. We all 
know that isn’t possible. Several people have issues with their app and Amazon 
firesticks. I use my phone and a chromecast and I see the issues when IPv6 is 
enabled. We are in the testing phase on rolling out IPv6 on our network. All 
the scripts are ready, just trying to work through the few issues like this one.

https://help.disneyplus.com/csp?id=csp_article_content&sys_kb_id=c91af021dbe46850b03cc58a139619ed

Thank you
Travis 



-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mark 
Andrews
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:45 PM
To: Sabri Berisha 
Cc: nanog 
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space

IPv6 doesn’t need a hard date.  It is coming, slowly, but it is coming.
Every data set says the same thing.  It may not be coming as fast as a lot of 
us would want or actually think is reasonable as ISP’s are currently being 
forced to deploy CGNs (NAT44 and NAT64) because there are laggards that are not 
doing their part.

If you offer a service over the Internet then it should be available over
IPv6 otherwise you are costing your customers more to reach you.  CGNs are not 
free.

Mark

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 06:07, Sabri Berisha  wrote:
> 
> - On Jan 21, 2021, at 6:40 AM, Andy Ringsmuth a...@andyring.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> I’m sure we all remember Y2k
> 
> Ah, yes. As a young IT consultant wearing a suit and tie (rofl), I 
> upgraded many bioses in many office buildings in the months leading up to 
> it...
> 
>> I’d love to see a line in the concrete of, say, January 1, 2025, 
>> whereby IPv6 will be the default.
> 
> The challenge with that is the market. Y2K was a problem that was 
> existed. It was a brick wall that we would hit no matter what. The 
> faulty code was released years before the date.
> 
> We, IETF, or even the UN could come up with 1/1/25 as the date where 
> we switch off IPv4, and you will still find networks that run IPv4 for 
> the simple reason that the people who own those networks have a choice. With 
> Y2K there was no choice.
> 
> The best way to have IPv6 implemented worldwide is by having an 
> incentive for the executives that make the decisions. From experience, 
> as I've said on this list a few times before, I can tell you that 
> decision makers with a limited budget that have to choose between a 
> new revenue generating feature, or a company-wide implementation of 
> IPv6, will choose the one that's best for their own short-term interests.
> 
> On that note, I did have a perhaps silly idea: One way to create the 
> demand could be to have browser makers add a warning to the URL bar, 
> similar to the HTTPS warnings we see today. If a site is IPv4 only, 
> warn that the site is using deprecated technology.
> 
> Financial incentives also work. Perhaps we can convince Mr. Biden to 
> give a .5% tax cut to corporations that fully implement v6. That will 
> create some bonus targets.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sabri

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

RE: MX204 Rails

[Travis Garrison]

We have used these (purchased from ebay) as universal rails for different 
products. Seemed a bit better than a shelf.

https://www.apc.com/shop/us/en/products/APC-4-Post-Rackmount-Rails/P-SU032A

Thanks Travis

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Cory 
Andrews
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: MX204 Rails

Have you tried the Juniper EX-4PST-RMK Rail Kit?  It is listed as compatible 
with Juniper EX and QFX compatible, but appears to be potentially the same as 
the slide rail kit that comes with the MX series devices.

Cory J Andrews
NetEquity.com
793 Center St. #551
Lewiston, NY 14092
877-582-4726 TF/FAX

On 7/16/2020 3:37 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> On Thu Jul 16, 2020 at 02:27:25PM -0500, Rafael Possamai wrote:
>> Doesn't the mx204 have rackmount brackets rather than rails?
> It has ears at the front, and "rails" at the rear.
>
> The MX204 would have come with the rear rails when bought new.
>
> See 
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/
> topics/topic-map/mx204-installing.html
>
> Simon

RE: Switch for SFP+

[Travis Garrison]

On the CRS 3xx line, use vlan filtering instead. This guarantees hardware 
offloading.

PS. Do not use this method on the 1xx or 2xx lines.

/interface bonding
add mode=802.3ad name=bond-inet slaves=ether9,ether10,ether8 
transmit-hash-policy=layer-2-and-3

/interface bridge
add name=bridge vlan-filtering=yes

/interface bridge port
add bridge=bridge interface=bond-inet
add bridge=bridge interface=sfp1

/interface bridge vlan
add bridge=bridge tagged=bond-inet,sfp1 vlan-ids=201

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mauro Gasparini
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 10:55 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Switch for SFP+

This works well on my CRSs:

/interface bonding
add mode=802.3ad name=bond-inet slaves=ether9,ether10,ether8 
transmit-hash-policy=layer-2-and-3

/interface bridge port
add bridge=br-cabase interface=bond-inet
add bridge=br-cabase interface=sfp1

But if I want to bridge vlans behind some bonding Instead of bridging phy 
interfaces, cpu explodes:

/interface vlan
add name=vl201-mmen vlan-id=201 interface=sfp1
add name=vl201-mment vlan-id=201 interface=bond-inet

/interface bridge port
add bridge=br-mment interface=vl201-mmen
add bridge=br-mment interface=vl201-mment

El 15/5/20 a las 12:06, Mike Hammett escribió:
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CRS3xx_series_switches#Bonding


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]

From: "Mauro Gasparini" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 8:55:22 AM
Subject: Re: Switch for SFP+

Thanks. I am currently using CRS326-24G-2S+ (with routerOS) for this, but when 
I want to do vlan trunking through the bonding, cpu load grows from 3% to more 
than 90%.
I'm consulting Mikrotik's support in the meantime, because routerOS probably 
doesn't take advantage of the switch hardware as swOS would.

El 15/5/20 a las 10:03, Alain Hebert escribió:
Hi,

Mikrotik is a decent product and I'm always amazed at their features set, 
but...

Using the UI to configuring the switch will punt too much traffic toward 
the CPU.  However, it is possible to configure the switch fabric with the cli 
and attain the desired results.

It does not compare to a JNP QFX5100 or a Extreme Network x650, x670...  
etc.

-

Alain Hebert
aheb...@pubnix.net

PubNIX Inc.

50 boul. St-Charles

P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7

Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443
On 2020-05-14 15:11, Adam Thompson wrote:

Have you actually looked at Mikrotik switches?  I don't like the OS, but the 
hardware does what you want it to.


https://mikrotik.com/products/group/switches?filter&s=c&r={%22sfp_plus_interface%22:{%22s%22:%223%22,%22e%22:%2224%22}}#!

If necessary, buy your SFP modules from FS.com and get them coded as Mikrotik 
modules at the factory - that's what we do for Cisco, Brocade, Juniper, 
Extreme, etc.

Even the top-of-the-line Mikrotik only costs US$899.

-Adam


Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[[MERLIN LOGO]]
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
www.merlin.mb.ca


From: NANOG  on behalf 
of Mauro Gasparini 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 8:46:21 AM
To: Mehmet Akcin
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Switch for SFP+

Thank you. The problem is that to get a price lower than U$D 3000 I have to 
resort to a used device.
El 14/5/20 a las 01:08, Mehmet Akcin escribió:
Used Juniper QFX5100-48T will do it. Probably overkill but you can grab one 
cheap @ebay

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 16:36 Mauro Gasparini 
mailto:mjgaspar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Good afternoon.

I'm looking for a switch with the

RE: IP Geolocation

[Travis Garrison]

I believe we have found 1 customer that is infected with a botnet or malware. 
His public ip address during speedtest or similar actually shows a Chinese ip 
address. We are contacting him to try to get that resolved and then put in a 
request to all the geolocation databases to update their information. It's 
still weird to me that a single customer out of around 120 can cause this many 
issues and change the geolocation databases.

Thanks
Travis-Original Message-
>Is this an indication of a prefix that was highjacked?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 14, 2019, at 9:19 AM, Ben Cannon  wrote:
>> 

IP Geolocation

[Travis Garrison]

Anyone else have issues where their IP block gets randomly set to China? We 
have been trying to track down this issue for months and our customers are 
starting to get upset. We get a /29 from our upstream provider that we CGNAT 
(yeah I know, working on implementing IPV6) to all of our customers at 1 
particular site. No other sites have any issues. We had our upstream provider 
allocate us a new IP block from a different subnet which fixed the issue for a 
while but now it's back. The state and town are correct but the country states 
China. This is having issues with Speedtests, NetFlix and others. The upstream 
is claiming that we are purposely using a proxy or VPN to china which causes 
this. We have checked all our configurations and even replaced all hardware in 
case something was hacked. Any ideas?

Thanks
Travis Garrison

FW: softlayer.com

[Travis Garrison]

Traceroute from here if it helps

Tracing route to 138-43-128-1.reserved.highland.net [138.43.128.1]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms  [REDACTED]
  2<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms  [REDACTED]
  3 1 ms 1 ms<1 ms  [REDACTED]
  4 1 ms<1 ms<1 ms  [REDACTED]
  5 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  v313.core1.mci3.he.net [216.218.213.141]
  616 ms16 ms16 ms  100ge10-2.core1.dal1.he.net [184.105.81.206]
  726 ms26 ms26 ms  
xo-as15-as2828.10gigabitethernet6-7.core1.dal1.he.net [184.105.255.78]
  840 ms39 ms40 ms  207.88.14.198.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.198]
  940 ms39 ms40 ms  207.88.12.178.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.178]
1039 ms39 ms39 ms  216.156.16.239.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.16.239]
1148 ms48 ms48 ms  ip65-46-198-198.z198-46-65.customer.algx.net 
[65.46.198.198]
1241 ms41 ms41 ms  
occm-6.dhcp.grp1-rng1.tncsvl.blomand.net.57.131.192.in-addr.arpa [192.131.57.6]
13 *** Request timed out.

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>> On Behalf 
Of Siyuan Miao
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 9:22 AM
To: Nikolas Geyer mailto:n...@neko.id.au>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: softlayer.com

Perhaps it won't work because their customer support will ask you for 
bi-directional traceroute and refused to forward to backbone team.

Then they'll say it's not their fault and you can see the packet is dropped 
outside our network.

Here's a sample traceroute from SoftLayer Washington, San Jose and Seattle in 
case someone needs it:

aveline@iad02-sl01:~$ mtr 138.43.128.1 --report-wide
Start: Fri Mar 22 17:20:42 2019
HOST: iad02-sl01Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1.|-- [REDACTED] 0.0%101.4   1.5   
0.8   3.7   1.0
  2.|-- 
ae13.dar02.wdc01.networklayer.com 
 0.0%100.5   3.3   0.4  28.6   8.8
  3.|-- 
ae9.bbr01.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com
  0.0%100.8   0.8   0.7   1.0   0.0
  4.|-- eqix-dc5.intellifiber.com 
 0.0%100.8   1.2   0.8   2.2   0.3
  5.|-- 
ae13-0.cr02.asbn01-va.us.windstream.net
0.0%100.9   0.9   0.9   1.0   0.0
  6.|-- 
ae11-0.cr01.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net
0.0%10   15.6  16.1  15.6  17.4   0.5
  7.|-- 
ae0-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net
 0.0%10   17.4  16.1  15.9  17.4   0.3
  8.|-- 
h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net
 0.0%10   24.7  24.8  24.6  24.9   0.0
  9.|-- 
east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net
  0.0%10   22.6  22.8  22.5  23.8   0.0
 10.|-- ???   100.0100.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0   0.0

aveline@sjc03-sl01:~$ mtr 138.43.128.1 --report-wide
Start: Fri Mar 22 16:21:04 2019
HOST: sjc03-sl01Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1.|-- [REDACTED] 0.0%102.4   2.0   
0.3  14.3   4.3
  2.|-- 
ae0.dar02.sjc01.networklayer.com   
0.0%101.0   0.5   0.3   1.3   0.0
  3.|-- 
ae9.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com
  0.0%100.8   0.8   0.7   0.9   0.0
  4.|-- eqix-sv1.windstream.com 
   0.0%100.9   0.9   0.8   1.1   0.0
  5.|-- 
ae6-0.cr02.lsaj01-ca.us.windstream.net
 0.0%10   11.6  11.5  11.5  11.6   0.0
  6.|-- 
ae-11-0.cr01.dlls01-tx.us.windstream.net
   0.0%10   42.6  42.7  42.5  43.4   0.0
  7.|-- 
ae7-0.cr02.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net
 0.0%10   64.0  65.6  63.9  74.2   3.4
  8.|-- 
ae1-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net
 0.0%10   62.3  62.7  62.2  66.9   1.5
  9.|-- 
h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net
 0.0%10   71.9  72.0  71.9  72.2   0.0
 10.|-- 
east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net
  0.0%10   69.9  68.8  68.6  69.9   0.3
 11.|-- ???   100.0100.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0   0.0

aveline@sea04-sl01:~$ mtr 138.43.128.1 --report-wide
Start: Fri Mar 22 08:19:09 2019
HOST: sea04-sl01Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1.|-- [REDACTED] 0.0%100.7   1.2   
0.7   1.8   

RE: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

[Travis Garrison]

Thanks everyone that replied, we have quite a list now to dig through.

Thanks
Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Travis Garrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:08 AM
To: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Looking for Telecom Lawyer

We are looking for a Telecom Lawyer to help us be a CLEC in the Arkansas, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma areas. Also we are looking to setup 
agreements for peering, transport and resell for ATT and CenturyLink in the 
same areas and Missouri. We are already a CLEC in Missouri.

Thank you
Travis

Looking for Telecom Lawyer

[Travis Garrison]

We are looking for a Telecom Lawyer to help us be a CLEC in the Arkansas, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma areas. Also we are looking to setup 
agreements for peering, transport and resell for ATT and CenturyLink in the 
same areas and Missouri. We are already a CLEC in Missouri.

Thank you
Travis

RE: What are people using for IPAM these days?

[Travis Garrison]

>On 6/12/18 1:52 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Randy Bush  said:
 If you start with Excel, down Will It Scale Road, you will be sorry, 
 so very sorry.  Especially when it comes to v6.
>>>
>>> emacs!
>> 
>> vim!
>> 
>
>ed!

Butterflies!