Re: [uknof] Full height rack with three lockable compartments

[Peter Knapp via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---
Hi.

https://www.rackcabinets.co.uk/collections/co-location-racks-1

Have three door colo racks.

Peter Knapp

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of John P Bourke
Sent: 11 January 2023 16:32
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Full height rack with three lockable compartments

Hi

Anyone know where I can get a Full height rack with 3 equal compartments ?

Thanks

John

--- End Message ---

Re: [uknof] LD8 Security Pods

[Peter Knapp]

Same in TH.

If you run over midnight, where you're in the building or not, you're stuck..

Peter Knapp
 

-Original Message-
From: uknof  On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
Sent: 23 January 2021 16:45
To: Alex Threlfall 
Cc: Jonathan Dixon ; UKNOF 
Subject: Re: [uknof] LD8 Security Pods

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 7:47 AM Alex Threlfall  wrote:

[...]

> I mean, in LD9 they disabled my card at midnight once when I was still on the 
> floor and couldn't get off, so had to set of the emergency releases on every 
> door until I got to security. Sigh.

Was that an actual decision by people at the change of shift or some poorly 
designed software that didn't check that yesterday's cards were no longer being 
used before deactivating them?

Regards,

Leo

Re: [uknof] Finding out future Openreach plans for a cabinet

[Peter Knapp]

I'm a EO line. Approx 2.5km from exchange. Local OR guy said they're due to 
strap cabs to the exchange front as to be fair you see outside every exchange. 
Of course at those cable lengths it makes no difference at all.

My cable passes a cab approx 300m from house. OR quoted 2k to slice it which I 
attempted to put under the previous voucher scheme and was rejected despite 
serving 141 premises as I didn't waste the time gaining their support.

Eventually we piaed fibre to the dc so I'm fine. Rest of surrounding minus my 
immediate neighbours are stuck on barely double digits sync speed. Or move one 
street up and have just shy of 80Mb.


Pete


 Original message 
From: Marek Isalski 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020, 19:44
To: Simon Gunton 
Cc: Alan Ramsay , uknof 
Subject: Re: [uknof] Finding out future Openreach plans for a cabinet
On 2020-10-07 19:12, Simon Gunton wrote:
> For a number of years my mum's house was a direct exchange only line,
> her
> next door neighbor was the split point and they could get FTTC, I would
> of
> been annoyed had I still been at home.

Not sure there's a plan for in-exchange DSLAMs for EO lines yet...?  Not
that it would help me, grateful for 17Mbit/sec (so long as the copper
doesn't get wet in the rain), because my PCP^Wcabinet^Wsawn-off-lamppost
is https://fs.maz.nu/chorlton-cabinet-42.jpg

--
Marek Isalski
CTO, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/

Faelix Limited: Security, Networks & Software.  Registered in England
and Wales.  Office: The Yard, 11 Bent Street, Manchester, M8 8NF.
Company: 5852778.  VAT: 889 441470.

Re: [uknof] BT/TTB Outage - North East

[Peter Knapp]

Fire in Newcastle central exchange we’ve been advised.

It’s second hand info, but from a reasonably reliable source. Of course all 
subtends are down too.

Peter


From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Dan Kitchen
Sent: 23 July 2020 13:15
To: uknof 
Subject: [uknof] BT/TTB Outage - North East

Anyone have any info? Been down about 45 mins now and very little has been said!

Seems all TTB ethernet is dead, all BTW/Openreach broadband is also dead.

Kind Regards,

Dan

Re: [uknof] Gamma Contact (Hosted PBX)

[Peter Knapp]

As Gary said cgnat was our biggest problem. Very prevelant on EE and to a 
lesser extend on Voda.

We ended up sending out baby mikrotiks as vpn routers to those who were stuck 
with hot-spot type solutions.

Although have to remember to turn off the alg on a mikrotik too!


Peter Knapp




 Original message 
From: Paul Bone 
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020, 19:31
To: Gary Steers 
Cc: uknof 
Subject: Re: [uknof] Gamma Contact (Hosted PBX)
Hi Gary

Worth checking if the 4G service is using CGNAT and if the 4G routers require 
an extended UDP timeout for the voice service.

Also the 4G router could have a SIP ALG running which could well cause issues.

Paul

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 19:26, Gary Steers 
mailto:g...@steersnet.org.uk>> wrote:
Hello,

Is there anyone on list, or someone who knows someone that could answer the 
following question?

One of my contacts who normally works from home is having major issues with his 
broadband not being stable at the moment, so is using 4G as a backup, but his 
desk phone will not connect when on 4G (He believes it's on a Gamma hosted PBX 
Service but is not sure)

He has had problems on the following providers
O2
EE

Happy to converse off-list.

Gary
--
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm

[Peter Knapp]

Alan.

While it isn’t technically confirmed of course, it appears very evident that 
your service is only resilient as far as fibre in ground and local pinch points 
are concerned.

If VM have taken a BT EAD back to their PoP, or even a BT exchange based VM 
“rack”, the issue here is your account manager or VM technical architect who 
hasn’t considered PoP site resilience, not Openreach.

I can name half a dozen “pinch points” in this area where the trunk Openreach 
and VM ducts run the same side of an A road for example and three VM PoP sites, 
including the regional head end that have nasty points of none resilience. Or 
on the flip side, that a.n.other brand of Ethernet tail provider uses VM for 
some areas of national backhaul for example, in the same fashion that another 
recognisable Ethernet tail provider uses SSE.

Ultimately the only person who can be fully calculated in the risks and costs 
associated with a twin provider would be yourself, to go and ask if carrier X 
is utilising VM backhaul, or whether VM have taken your EAD cct to the same 
single ended PoP site as your VM NE service.

All the best,

Pete

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 29 April 2020 11:35
To: Alan Ramsay 
Cc: uknof ; Paul Mansfield 

Subject: Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm

Alan,
Not sure what organisation you are from, but are you share details on that BT 
outage? There should not be a situation where we lose FTTC/G.FAST/ADSL all at 
the same time from a single fibre break. If that happened something else went 
wrong and I’d want to take a look at it.

Regards,
Neil.

From: Alan Ramsay mailto:adramsay+uk...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 11:29
To: Neil McRae mailto:n...@domino.org>>
Cc: Paul Mansfield 
mailto:paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk>>, uknof 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm

The updates that we had regarding this was:

-The ducting has now been repaired
-The 800m of 160 is currently in the process of being pulled in.
-The new cable has now been pulled in and prep work has began.
-The ETR has now been revised to be between 01:00 - 02:00.

I'm assuming that this was 800m of a 160 core fibre.

It is a little worrying how susceptible Telford is to this, and how poorly 
connected things are around here on both BT and Virgin sides.

So in the last 3 weeks, we've had an extended outage on all FTTC / ADSL / 
G.Fast based broadband service due to a single fibre break on the BT(O) side; 
and now a single fibre break has taken out all VM services into the same area.

You would have thought that the infrastructure would have been in place to be 
more resilient than that!

Alan

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:16, Neil J. McRae 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:
Read the part about a fibre break…

From: uknof 
mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk>> on 
behalf of Paul Mansfield 
mailto:paul%2buk...@mansfield.co.uk>>
Date: Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 10:38
To: Alan Ramsay mailto:adramsay%2buk...@gmail.com>>, 
uknof mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm


just speculating wildly, was this a result of IPv6 deployment going wrong?

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Peter Knapp]

Likewise from my EO line, which goes straight through the chamber under the 
VDSL cab :-(

Peter Knapp
 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of David Derrick
Sent: 03 September 2019 17:07
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

On 03/09/2019 16:41, Marek Isalski wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2019, at 14:54, Neil J. McRae  wrote: Yah
>> we’re about to go 100G at my place :) fortunately for us we’re well
>> on the petabit journey.
> 
> Ok, while we're all bragging about home Internet speeds, here's my
> serving cabinet.  Suburban Manchester, affluent area in the middle of
> the G.Fast trial in Chorlton, ~150 metres from the exchange:

I hate you all from the end of my damp twisted pair.
-- 
David Derrick
Systems & Network Engineer
Entanet International Ltd
0330 100 0330

Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref

[Peter Knapp]

So does the host have no HTTP/HTTPS access, or name server lookups etc?

BT will use all those ports these days.

Peter


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Andy Smith
Sent: 07 June 2019 15:28
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 
2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref

Hi Peter,

Just iptables on the host, it's just that this particular host has a
restrictive firewall on both input and output and given the ports
and IPs listed in the report it should not have been possible for
that activity to happen.

Of course, if it had been compromised then maybe the firewall got
altered and then put back again afterwards but this all gets a bit
far-fetched for the sake of downloading a movie by BitTorrent.

Like I say, I looked into it and couldn't find any indication that
it had actually happened, and the reporting company was completely
impossible to communicate with.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:07:50PM +0000, Peter Knapp wrote:
> Love to know what firewall you're using that guarantees you can't get any 
> form of BT through it please?
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Andy Smith
> Sent: 07 June 2019 15:04
> To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 
> 2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:10PM +0400, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 17:25, Andy Smith  wrote:
> > > However, one day they sent one that implicated one of our
> > > infrastructure hosts and I could not see any way in which that could
> > > be torrenting, so I asked for more information. Every form of
> > > contact I made resulted in an auto response suggesting that if I am
> > > confused I should ask my network admin about it.
> > 
> > So you're saying people who work at infrastructure companies - ISPs, DCs
> > etc, they don't do torrents and the like, and they would not do so with
> > on-premise equipment.
> 
> No, I'm saying that unlike customer services in this specific case I
> had full access to it and was able to audit it to the best of my
> ability and found no such activity. BitTorrent wouldn't even have
> been able to get through its firewall.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> -- 
> https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref

[Peter Knapp]

Love to know what firewall you're using that guarantees you can't get any form 
of BT through it please?

Pete


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Andy Smith
Sent: 07 June 2019 15:04
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 
2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref

Hello,

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:10PM +0400, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 17:25, Andy Smith  wrote:
> > However, one day they sent one that implicated one of our
> > infrastructure hosts and I could not see any way in which that could
> > be torrenting, so I asked for more information. Every form of
> > contact I made resulted in an auto response suggesting that if I am
> > confused I should ask my network admin about it.
> 
> So you're saying people who work at infrastructure companies - ISPs, DCs
> etc, they don't do torrents and the like, and they would not do so with
> on-premise equipment.

No, I'm saying that unlike customer services in this specific case I
had full access to it and was able to audit it to the best of my
ability and found no such activity. BitTorrent wouldn't even have
been able to get through its firewall.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [uknof] Mobile Phone Booster Systems

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

I take this his is a requirement over and above a pico/femtocell such as a 
Suresignal etc?

If it is a sole network client of some spend, get onto their operators tech 
department and they may arrange something.

We've an EE customer who has a full install in a large building (Ethernet 
delivery, leaky feeder down a riser) and another who has much larger than 
domestic pico-cell style boosters over a VPN back to EE.

Voda have similar solutions - again another client with both full site install 
and pico style, although their picos are only 3g, not 4.

I've never had such dealing with O2 so can't comment for them.

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of John Bourke
Sent: 26 February 2019 12:10
To: Paul Bone; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Mobile Phone Booster Systems

Hi,

I have an RF booster which I bought and never used, swap for beer ...

Thanks

John


From: uknof  On Behalf Of Paul Bone
Sent: 26 February 2019 11:17
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Mobile Phone Booster Systems

Hi,

Can anyone recommend a partner to install internal mobile phone signal booster 
systems?

I'm aware of the recent relaxation of the Ofcom rules on these and find 
equipment that is apparently certified, but I would rather find a partner who 
does actively install these systems.

Thanks!

Paul

Re: [uknof] DSL Checker down?

[Peter Knapp]

Ahh, I was referring to :

https://www.btwholesale.com/includes/adsl/main.html

Which is working fine.

Peter Knapp


From: Hal Ponton [mailto:h...@buzcom.net]
Sent: 20 November 2018 11:23
To: Peter Knapp
Cc: Phil Bartlett; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] DSL Checker down?

Getting the same thing from my end. I'm assuming you mean dslchecker.bt.com?
--
--
Regards,

Hal Ponton
Senior Network Engineer

Buzcom / FibreWiFi



Peter Knapp wrote on 20/11/2018 11:17:

Hi.

If you are referring to BT Wholesale checker, it is working fine for us at 
present.

Regards,

Peter Knapp



From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Phil Bartlett
Sent: 20 November 2018 11:07
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
Subject: [uknof] DSL Checker down?

Good morning all

Is anyone else having issues with the DSL checker. Front page loads fine but 
anything else comes back with 404 error

Rgds

Phil



To opt-in to receiving communications from us or to update your email 
preferences please click here<https://lists.comtek.co.uk/prefs>. To be removed 
from receiving all communications from the Comtek Group, including Sorrento 
Networks Ltd, please unsubscribe here<https://lists.comtek.co.uk/prefs> and 
accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

The Comtek Group respects your privacy. Please find our privacy policy 
here<http://www.comtek.co.uk/privacy-policy/>.

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the named 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately. The unauthorised use, 
disclosure, copying or alteration of this message or its attachments is 
strictly prohibited. Opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
individual and not Sorrento Networks Ltd unless indicated by an authorised 
representative independent of this message. Sorrento Networks does not accept 
responsibility for any changes to this message after it has been sent. Company 
Details: Sorrento Networks Ltd. Registered Office: Sorrento Networks Ltd, Unit 
108, Tenth Avenue (Zone 3), Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 
2UA. Sorrento Networks Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with 
company number 09222342.

Re: [uknof] DSL Checker down?

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

If you are referring to BT Wholesale checker, it is working fine for us at 
present.

Regards,

Peter Knapp



From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Phil Bartlett
Sent: 20 November 2018 11:07
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] DSL Checker down?

Good morning all

Is anyone else having issues with the DSL checker. Front page loads fine but 
anything else comes back with 404 error

Rgds

Phil



To opt-in to receiving communications from us or to update your email 
preferences please click here<https://lists.comtek.co.uk/prefs>. To be removed 
from receiving all communications from the Comtek Group, including Sorrento 
Networks Ltd, please unsubscribe here<https://lists.comtek.co.uk/prefs> and 
accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

The Comtek Group respects your privacy. Please find our privacy policy 
here<http://www.comtek.co.uk/privacy-policy/>.

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the named 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately. The unauthorised use, 
disclosure, copying or alteration of this message or its attachments is 
strictly prohibited. Opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
individual and not Sorrento Networks Ltd unless indicated by an authorised 
representative independent of this message. Sorrento Networks does not accept 
responsibility for any changes to this message after it has been sent. Company 
Details: Sorrento Networks Ltd. Registered Office: Sorrento Networks Ltd, Unit 
108, Tenth Avenue (Zone 3), Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 
2UA. Sorrento Networks Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with 
company number 09222342.

Re: [uknof] London broadband issue?

[Peter Knapp]

Thumbs up from us Neil.

The board has just cleared of red stuff!

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 26 September 2018 13:04
To: Martin Hepworth; Stuart Henderson
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Simon Jones
Subject: Re: [uknof] London broadband issue?

This should be resolved now. Let me know if you still see any issues.

Neil.

On 26/09/2018, 12:39, "uknof on behalf of Neil J. McRae" 
mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk> on 
behalf of n...@domino.org> wrote:

We are aware of a problem in Columbo area and are working to diagnose.

Neil.

On 26/09/2018, 12:08, "uknof on behalf of Martin Hepworth" 
mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk> on 
behalf of max...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yup Gamma also reporting mso

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 12:01, Stuart Henderson 
mailto:s...@spacehopper.org>> wrote:
On 2018/09/26 10:50, Simon Jones wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
>
>
> We’re getting a large influx of calls from our broadband customers all over 
> London – anyone
> notice if something major has broken?

Seems that way.

A&A: [Minor] Broadband: BT Lines dropped in London area (Open)
Zen: #5226 Routing & Core Network - Nationwide Outage (New)
Entanet: Incident: Columbo DSL

--
--
Martin Hepworth, CISSP
Oxford, UK

Re: [uknof] Arista

[Peter Knapp]

It works for Lonap (Bar IGMP snooping issues, which have been fixed in later 
versions of EOS).

Fair recommendation I would suggest.

Peter Knapp
 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Mark Pillow
Sent: 21 November 2017 14:05
To: Darren Brown; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Arista

Hi Darren

Stuart Steel Arista (details below) attended UKNOF last year.

Stuart Steele
Service Provider Account Manager
e. sste...@arista.com
m. +44 (0) 7788 368746
www.arista.com

My experience is they produce good stable products with very good after care 
support.. If you have a cisco background they will make sense.
UK distributor is Vanix but I also know that Curvature can supply.

Thx Mark



-
Mark Pillow
Managing Director

Voip Unlimited

T: 01202612000

F: 01202612111
E: m...@voip-unlimited.net
-

Online ordering now live!
Visit: https://portal.voip-unlimited.net or speak to your Account Manager today.

-




On 21/11/2017, 13:42, "uknof on behalf of Darren Brown" 
 wrote:

Hi Guys,

Does anyone have any experience of Arista products good / bad ? I am 
specifically looking at the 7280SRA. In addition, does anybody know who the “go 
to” supplier in the UK would be ?

Many Thanks
Darren Brown

Re: [uknof] Vodafone/CW Looking Glass

[Peter Knapp]

Cert expired on 6th Oct 2017.

Of course you could consider a browser that allows "ignore cert" options in the 
interim. Although we told Voda on the 9th and they well haven't listened yet.



Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Rich Lewis
Sent: 17 October 2017 16:19
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Vodafone/CW Looking Glass

Hi

If anyone from Vodafone/CW/AS1273 is on the list, please can you fix the 
certificate at https://support.cw.com/?TESTDRIVE=1&LG=1. It seems it's been 
revoked:

"An error occurred during a connection to support.cw.com. Peer's Certificate 
has been revoked. Error code:
SEC_ERROR_REVOKED_CERTIFICATE"

It's hampering access to your Looking Glass and other tools.

TIA

Rich.

Re: [uknof] London Epsilon to THN

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

Looking at the annual, even Openreach / R02 is reasonably sensible, bearing in 
mind you can actually use both legs if you wish.

100/100 is considerably cheaper than 10/10 of course too.

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of John Bourke
Sent: 12 October 2017 11:27
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] London Epsilon to THN

Hi,

I need 10Mbps protected between London Epsilon and THN, although I am happy to 
purchase the minimum quantity.

Any recommandations for Metro Ethernet providers at both sites ?

Thanks

John

Re: [uknof] Vodafone proxy problem

[Peter Knapp]

Twitter is the way to wake Voda up.

Works for SureSignals and IP Routing issues.

Peter Knapp

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 18 August 2017 15:30
To: Peter Hicks; uk...@uknof.org
Subject: Re: [uknof] Vodafone proxy problem

If it was me I’d say best way is for your customer to raise it to Voda. Or mail 
the whois listed on the route at RIPE, or hope some kind voda person is reading 
and reaches out :D

Neil.

On 18/08/2017, 15:22, "uknof on behalf of Peter Hicks" 
mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk> on 
behalf of peter.hi...@poggs.co.uk<mailto:peter.hi...@poggs.co.uk>> wrote:

Hello

I have a user coming from a Vodafone /23 who's getting a 503 error when trying 
to access one of my sites over HTTP.  I don't even see any traffic from this 
/23 when the errors happen, so I'm fairly sure the problem is at Voda's end.

What's the best way, as a "not a VF customer", of reporting this to Vodafone?


Peter

Re: [uknof] Example of total DC loss

[Peter Knapp]

You have to love some of the comments though:

yorkie71 20th January 2016
and when this happened I never knew BT Exchange being down would also impact 
Mobile phone signals who knew I thought the magic satellites/mobile masts 
did that


Aye Yorkie71, mobile phone backhaul is via Sootys’ magic wand.

FWIW this took out a load of subtend exchanges as well, and even “passthru” 
services, or so you would believe that only relied on the ODF were affected 
although I understand this was an accident rather than that EADs had optical 
amps in the building. Someone commented (at the time) somebody “put their foot 
in it” – quite literally, in badly managed fibre alongside one of the ODFs and 
ripped a bunch out.


Much the same happened in Leeds centre, although the shadow exchange was 
pressed into service here..

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Alistair 
Cockeram
Sent: 02 June 2017 12:06
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Example of total DC loss

On 1 June 2017 at 11:50, Simon Green 
mailto:simon.gr...@wirehive.com>> wrote:
I’m hunting for an examples of long duration data centre outages in the UK, 
from a day of downtime to total data centre loss (explosion or some other 
industrial accident).
 [...]
Slightly more casually interested in BT exchanges as well.

York Stonebow.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14214765.FLOODS__BT_investigating_how_to_prevent_repeat_of_outage_that_hit_50_000_properties/

--
Alistair Cockeram

Re: [uknof] Example of total DC loss

[Peter Knapp]

Be*There, Global Crossing/Level 3 etc.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/09/major-broadband-outage-northampton-uk-business-park-fire.html

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Jack Kay
Sent: 01 June 2017 18:50
To: Simon Green
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Example of total DC loss

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/18/telecity_outage_fix_failed/

The SOV outage wasn’t day long.. but the fallout and “AT RISK” period that came 
around that spanned several days.


On 1 Jun 2017, at 11:50, Simon Green 
mailto:simon.gr...@wirehive.com>> wrote:

Morning List :)

I’m hunting for an examples of long duration data centre outages in the UK, 
from a day of downtime to total data centre loss (explosion or some other 
industrial accident).

Is anyone aware of any tails they could share? Bigger and higher impact the 
better.

Slightly more casually interested in BT exchanges as well.

I’m aware of:
• Several corporate incidents, including Three, Capita, and Vodafone
• The Telecity power issues from a few years back, though they were 
less than a day



Simon

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media fibre expansion

[Peter Knapp]

Not had chance for a proper look. Flying visit and didn't check.

>From the pics this evening it looks like a dual copper ethernet presentation 
>with tv over IP and external wifi router/ap.

Had a wall mount "switch" not dissimilar in style to the ex BT FTTC modem from 
where you have 100/1000bt presentations.

Box looks like a standard Tivo but had no subscription card.



 Original message 
From: Paul Mansfield 
Date: 28/05/2017 22:36 (GMT+00:00)
To: Peter Knapp , uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Media fibre expansion

On 28 May 2017 at 20:35, Peter Knapp  wrote:
> Yes it's ftth.
>
> Sister in laws house has just been connected in a project lightening area.


any sign of IPv6?

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media fibre expansion

[Peter Knapp]

Yes it's ftth.

Sister in laws house has just been connected in a project lightening area.

On 28 May 2017 8:16 pm, James Greig  wrote:

Hi,



Virgin are rolling out FTTH/FTTP apparently so seems very likely.  
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7404-virgin-media-lays-claim-to-largest-ftth-roll-out-in-uk



Best regards,



James Greig



From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Marty Strong
Sent: 28 May 2017 19:59
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Media fibre expansion



Virgin have been digging up the streets of Barnet for a few weeks as part of a 
new expansion 
(https://www.theresavilliers.co.uk/news/lightning-strikes-barnet-4-premises-get-ultrafast-broadband-boost-virgin-media).



Had a look at some of the streets they were digging up and noticed they're 
installing small green tubing in the ducts they're digging, which don't seem to 
be big enough to take coax in. They also don't seem to be installing any green 
cabinets, just little plastic covers at each house.



On top of the tubing they're laying green plastic warning that it's fibre optic 
being laid and not copper, seems as though they're doing FTTH, does anybody 
know if any of the new expansion areas are FTTH, or all just FTTC?



Image: http://imgur.com/a/aEWjH

Re: [uknof] Vodafone Suresignal Problems

[Peter Knapp]

We've had this.

Took to their customer forum to start with which got me nowhere. Then took to 
Twitter and referenced the forum.  Eventually solved.

More recently if you just straight to their forum and post the serial and a 
traceroute they pick it up really quickly and "resync" your unit.

Had to do a couple end of last month. Back on within a couple of hours.

Forum.vodafone.co.uk is the place to go.

Peter Knapp

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Darren Brown
Sent: 04 May 2017 11:10
To: Paul Bone
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Vodafone Suresignal Problems

Im not sure with Sure Signal but i think the TMobile equivalent used to do 
something clever with MTU / packet size to check you was not VPN'ing back from 
another country, I suspect if Vodafone do something similar, perhaps you are 
using PPPOE with a lower MTU and the IPSec tunnel cannot form with the required 
MTU ?

Regards
Darren

On 4 May 2017, at 09:07, Paul Bone 
mailto:paul.b...@bridgefibre.co.uk>> wrote:


Is there anyone from Vodafone on this list who could advise on Vodafone 
Suresignal devices?

We have just taken over the internet supply of a site (so changed customers IP 
addresses) and several users have Vodafone Suresignals which no longer work 
after the switch. We have not changed their routers just their IP addresses.

Vodafone 1st line support just keeps telling the customers that the ISP is 
blocking their IPsec tunnels which we are not. It looks to me like Vodafone 
might have some whitelists for these devices but I am speculating!

Thanks

Best regards, Paul

Re: [uknof] BT DSL Checker

[Peter Knapp]

Or having to use IE as you can’t even add the signing exception in FF

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Chambers
Sent: 06 April 2017 15:14
To: Neil J. McRae; Nicholas Humfrey; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BT DSL Checker

Did this get stuck somewhere? It feels silly pointing people at a BT site and 
having to tell them to click through a security error.

Re: [uknof] Single Mode SFP with fibre patch lead anyone at or around postcode SG12FP

[Peter Knapp]

There is going to be demand, forced by the lack of options!

For me, having to specify routers with SFP cages for all connectivity on gig 
bearers is not only a pain, but considerably more costly than a 1000BT.

Peter 



> Because copper gig ports are more common on CPE than fibre ones. Virgin give 
> the option for copper as well as SM or MM fibre, it would be nice if OR did 
> as well. Since it's an SFP it should be easy enough technically.

I think that depends on the market you are in, for downstream BT with 1G sized 
customers fibre is in much more demand than copper, same was true at the last 
two places I worked at also. 

Neil

Re: [uknof] Single Mode SFP with fibre patch lead anyone at or around postcode SG12FP

[Peter Knapp]

You cant really expect them to sell sfps though given branded manufacturers are 
all device coded (including Advas)



Pete


 Original message 
From: Jack Kay 
Date: 20/03/2017 08:55 (GMT+00:00)
To: Gavin Henry 
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Single Mode SFP with fibre patch lead anyone at or around 
postcode SG12FP

Maplins appear to sell patch leads but no optics.. helpful.

http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/c2g-85604-1m-lc-lc-9125-os1-duplex-singlemode-pvc-fibre-optic-cable-lszh-ye-r05xk


On 18 Mar 2017, at 17:14, Gavin Henry 
mailto:ghe...@suretec.co.uk>> wrote:

Hi all,

OR didn't deliver RJ45 presentation like requested and our customer is
trying to get this up at the weekend

Anyone based round Arlington Business Park, Stevenage with some?

Thanks.

--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - Dark Fibre

[Peter Knapp]

They do have a product.
It is assessed by commercial on a case by case basis.
I have a potential number of ops for it and they only approved one at anything 
like a sensible price.



On 3 Feb 2017 23:15, Brandon Butterworth  wrote:
On Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 11:41:54AM -, Phil Bartlett wrote:
> Does anyone have a contact within Virgin Media who I can discuss
> Dark Fibre with?

Conceptually? (been waiting for a Glasgow install for
nearly a year)

brandon

Re: [uknof] Undoing an unwanted FTTC migration (to BT)

[Peter Knapp]

The sad thing is Phil, that we hear and deal with similar stories from said 
BTLB outfit perhaps 3-4 times a month.

Them being local to us means we do tend to be on the rear end of a good 
quantity of their excrement including an ISDN2  > IP conversion for BCM50 that 
they kindly sold a customer. It was supposed to be completed before Christmas, 
at which point they removed the ISDN2 and converted it to ADSL . So at some 
point someone “might” stick an BCM50A in so they have the IP bit enabled, 
perhaps, maybe.

To be frank I believe the lucky recipients of this faux pas have given up 
chasing said BTLB and are now using our VoIP without the BCM 50..
Thankfully they (BT) did get the ISDN to ADSL conversion right..

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Phillip Baker
Sent: 18 January 2017 10:49
To: Brandon Butterworth
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Undoing an unwanted FTTC migration (to BT)

On 16 January 2017 at 15:37, Brandon Butterworth 
mailto:bran...@bogons.net>> wrote:
The simple answer is for the customer to tell the people who broke it
to get it restored or else all the stuff they renewed is not longer
renewed and will go elsewhere and they will be billed for damages
and cost of migration.

BT are only going to listen to their franchise holder and not you
so make it their problem to resolve

This was an avenue we were already pursuing, and they don't give a shit. Latest 
(last?) email from them:

"As I have no lines of communication with a team or department that can migrate 
services away from BT (something that I stated when first made aware of this 
case), then I’m afraid cancellation of the whole order would be the only 
option."

The BTLB has been forwarded the nearly £1k "you're moving away and terminating 
early" warning that BT Retail have sent for this broadband line (because BT 
Retail got a NoT after our transfer request, fancy that) - can't wait for that 
argument to start when the actual bill arrives.

As a result of a (nameless!) jobsworth at BTW HLE inserting themselves as 
arbiter in a case that they have no real standing in despite all parties 
agreeing "This should not have happened" and rejecting the USR at this point it 
seems that it's a case of waiting until the 30th (when the USR-rejected 
migration reaches it's current commit date) unless the separate out-of-band 
attempt succeeds.

I am going to have to reroute their block to a linux vm on our network for the 
time being and tunnel their traffic for them. Insert six paragraphs or so of 
four letter words used variously as nouns, adjectives and verbs here.

Re: [uknof] BT EAD Chassis in Equicity Kilburn

[Peter Knapp]

Telehouse do (charge a cross connect fee) but Openreach either absorbed it and 
paid it themselves or have a “special arrangement” with TH as there were no 
charges for our tubes.

Peter Knapp

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Ryce
Sent: 12 January 2017 20:15
To: Neil J. McRae
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BT EAD Chassis in Equicity Kilburn

Hi Neil,

We have had previous issues with DC's getting BT into our rack.  Some DC's will 
only allow BT into a meet me room then try to charge us for a cross connect for 
every customer on the chassis.

I should have qualified it more as I was interested more in do Equinix charge a 
cross connected fee for pulling in a 24/48/96f or is there some agreement 
between Equinix and BT.
Nick Ryce
Senior Network Architect
Commsworld Ltd



On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:25 PM +, "Neil J. McRae" 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:
Why do you think there is something special about Kilburn?

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Jan 2017, at 17:00, Nick Ryce 
mailto:n...@fluency.net.uk>> wrote:
Hi,

Has anyone had any experience in getting a BT EAD chassis into their rack with 
associated splice tray etc in Kilburn.

I would ask their support desk but they will probably charge us to respond to 
the ticket.

TIA

Nick

Re: [uknof] IX-Reach / Console - gone down hill?

[Peter Knapp]

Wow doesn't this all sound like Nwix and Edge-IX.

Bloody coincidental that and we still have a slight sour taste from those names 
and contractual issues.



Peter Knapp



 Original message 
From: Mark Blackman 
Date: 01/09/2016 20:35 (GMT+00:00)
To: "n...@bhost.net" 
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] IX-Reach / Console - gone down hill?


> On 1 Sep 2016, at 18:38, n...@bhost.net  wrote:
>
> Are there any other folks out there who were once satisfied IX Reach 
> customers but think it's gone down hill since acquisition by Console? 
> Wondering if it's just me or not!
>
> Nick

I did have a curious email where my account manager said I had one day to 
notify them of discontinuation of the service or I was signed up for another 
year.

- Mar

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

[Peter Knapp]

Its ok. Once you know Phil you grow to love him, eh Mr B!



Pete



 Original message 
From: "Neil J. McRae" 
Date: 19/08/2016 22:17 (GMT+00:00)
To: Paul Mansfield , uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

I’m feeling all teary LOL.

Neil.

From: uknof  on behalf of Paul Mansfield 

Date: Friday, 19 August 2016 at 18:50
To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
Subject: Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware


On 19 Aug 2016 14:50, "Phillip Baker" 
mailto:phillip.ba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> That you are just about the only face of (part of) BT who both engages on a 
> regular basis

Indeed, Neil is to be commended for being willing to do this and put up with 
the  he must face on a regular basis, and to have to explain and re-explain 
things and not lose his sanity is remarkable.

Re: [uknof] UKNOF mailing list migration

[Peter Knapp]

We are amusingly waiting for you to send out the testing 1-2 emails ;-)

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Gord Slater
Sent: 12 August 2016 15:07
To: Nat Morris
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] UKNOF mailing list migration

it's quiet.

have free reply from me to raise your confidence


-- 
sent via Gmail web interface, so please excuse my gross neglect of Netiquette

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - Edinburgh, St Andrew Square

[Peter Knapp]

Your VM account manager / planner should be able to tell you the reasons why 
assuming you’ve contracted the service of course.

We have a delivery in Hanover Street which is 2 mins walk from the square, 
which has been beset with issues and is dragging for a whole list of reasons. I 
wonder if there is a connection in some way.

Peter Knapp


From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Diver
Sent: 09 August 2016 10:49
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Media - Edinburgh, St Andrew Square

Bit of a long shot; anyone on here have VM at the above location?

Have been spun a yarn and day before digging and installing (tomorrow) they've 
now said they can't do it..despite 2 previous visits.

Would appreciate a contact at VM/contractors for a detailed explanation as to 
why.

Ta,

Mart

Sent from my HTC

Re: [uknof] reputable ipv4 brokers

[Peter Knapp]

Can confirm we had financial dealings with them and I wouldn't waste my money 
on escrow if we had to again. They weren't quite the cheapest but very efficient


Peter Knapp



-- Original message--
From: Paul Mansfield
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 18:25
To: Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi;uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk;
Cc:
Subject:Re: [uknof] reputable ipv4 brokers

these people sponsored UKNOF meetings, so it would be good if they
decide it's worthwhile, so at least call and get a quote and say
"UKNOF sent me here"

http://ipv4marketgroup.com/

Re: [uknof] Peering with Limelight Networks

[Peter Knapp]

From their peering web page:

" All requests will be considered by the peering committee and we'll respond in 
2-4 weeks."

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Martin 
Hannigan
Sent: 17 June 2016 15:28
To: Paul Civati
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Peering with Limelight Networks

I can't speak for my illustrious competitor who may, or may not, want your free 
traffic. :-) I would reach out to Gaurab. He's in charge of peering and I think 
he is _here_.

I do know they have a selective policy and have a min bits limitation.
I don't know for sure what that is, but I thought it was close to or exceeding 
at least 1 Gb/s.

YMMV, and thanks!

Best,

-M<




On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Paul Civati  wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2016, at 14:22, Paul Bone  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone managed to set up a LINX peering with Limelight Networks and got 
>> any contacts?
>>
>> We are seeing a fairly high percentage of traffic from their AS on our 
>> transit (particularly during the England game yesterday!) and I have tried 
>> several times to contact them via the Peering DB site to no avail.
>
> One can only assume, like many things in life nowadays…
>
> no response = not interested
>
> -Paul-
>
>

Re: [uknof] BT Openreach ECCs

[Peter Knapp]

Did you order an upgrade or a new cct to perform a cease and reprovide?

And are you moving from a gig or below to a 10 gig. Ie moving from a simplex/bx 
delivery to a duplex?


Peter

-- Original message--
From: Ben McKeegan
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:36
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk;
Cc:
Subject:[uknof] BT Openreach ECCs

Hi,

I'm hoping someone who more regularly places Ethernet orders with BT
Openreach could quickly tell me if its me or them that is confused over
the issue of whether Excess Construction Charges should be applicable to
increase existing capacity.

We have recently been quoted thousands of pounds ECC for adding
additional circuits to an existing rack.  I quibbled this but the
Openreach planners have justified this on the basis the existing tubing
to that rack is full so they are going to pull out some old disused
fibre from another floor of the same building and re-route tubing, and
they appear to be trying to charge us to pull out the old fibre as well
as running the new fibre.  Their exact words were: "PLANNER COSTED FOR
1482M OF FIBRE DUE TO SURVEYOR ADVISING THAT TUBING ON SITE IS FULL &
ABANDONED FIBRE ON THE GROUND FLOOR WOULD NEED TO BE BLOWN OUT
(741M) & THEN A NEW BUNDLE BLOWN IN TO NEW 1ST FLOOR LOCATION" (which is
odd as I've pointed out them at least 3 times now this is not a 'new'
location, it is an existing rack with several live circuits in it already.)

However, it has long been my understanding that BT did not charge ECC
for increasing capacity when the existing fibre was full.  (We don't
care how they do it: it was their decision to re-use the old tubing so
this should be irrelevant - all we are asking is for more fibre capacity
to the existing rack.)

I went looking on the Openreach portal for reference to the ECC
exemption for increasing capacity and couldn't find it on any of the
more recent documents about ECC.  It is however mentioned in the ECC FAQ
which states that although there is no formal contractual exemption they
don't charge for increasing capacity.

Has the informal policy now changed and do we just have to lump these
ECC charges, or it this just a mistake by the planner?


Cheers,
--
Ben McKeegan
Netservers Limited

Re: [uknof] IOS Mail App (was Re: vendor-neutral json representation of firewall rules...)

[Peter Knapp]

It isn’t readable on either a Samsung S6 nor an LG G4 with Exchange Activesync 
either for what it is worth.

Neither is your message readable Ed..

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Edward Dore
Sent: 07 June 2016 14:55
To: Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Simon Lockhart
Subject: Re: [uknof] IOS Mail App (was Re: vendor-neutral json representation 
of firewall rules...)

On 7 Jun 2016, at 14:25, Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi 
mailto:dari...@gravitas.co.uk>> wrote:

Simon,

It’s down to the fact that Tom PGP signs his emails, and the iOS mail client 
doesn’t know how to decode it.
Even though the message is plaintext with an appended PGP signature, it 
confuses iOS Mail.
Actual message look a bit like this (hopefully this will get to you unmangled)

I'm able to read Tom's message fine in iOS Mail on iOS 9.3.2 
(http://cl.ly/083V30142q2b). As far as I know, I haven't got anything special 
installed which would allow this.

I think Nico's theory that Simon has an app installed which is causing the body 
of the message to be treated as an attachment that should be opened externally 
is most likely.

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet

Re: [uknof] Mikrotik as Service Provider Router

[Peter Knapp]

Hi Adrian and co.

Don't you have massive  convergence issues with a table reload on them?

We tried ccr1036s  and they basically seemed to be all but unresponsive  
loading a full table of routes.

To be fair we haven't tried for a while but did note still a single threaded 
bgp process and seemed awful.

Interested to hear new knowledge on these..



Peter



 Original message 
From: Adrian Bolster 
Date: 16/05/2016 20:23 (GMT+00:00)
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Mikrotik as Service Provider Router

Hi Paul,

Oure whole core is Mikrotik, no Juniper or Brocade in sight! We're running 3 
IPv4 and 2 IPv6 eBGP sessions over 2 Mikrotik Routerboards, 2 1gibt/s point to 
point and 1 10gbit/s to a different provider, each with a full routing table 
and they don't even break a sweat.

Adrian.


From: uknof [uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] on behalf of Paul Bone 
[paul.b...@bridgefibre.co.uk]
Sent: 16 May 2016 13:09
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Cc: Administrator
Subject: [uknof] Mikrotik as Service Provider Router

Has anyone had experience using Mikrotik CCR as either CE or PE routers?

I have been playing with transparent traffic shaping on one of the little hAP 
units (not suggesting this as a CE!) and it seems to work well and the OS has 
support for BGP, BFD and MPLS.

We currently use Juniper SRX but the supposed throughput figures and cost of 
the Mikrotik would be very attractive at the high commercial level.

Best regards, Paul

Re: [uknof] Strange DSL problem, anyone using this combination?

[Peter Knapp]

This was in the early versions of Rb2011 routerboards in both rackmount (Black 
case) and desktop (red cased) ones.

If you used ports on the second switch chip 6 to 10 it is fine.

Routerboard acknowledged this and made a change and we haven't seen it in the 
last year or so of stock.

It was a hardware rather than firmware fix in the early rb2011s as we were 
instructed to return all the stock and they replaced them.


Peter Knapp


-- Original message--
From: Chris Wilkie
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:26
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk;
Cc:
Subject:Re: [uknof] Strange DSL problem, anyone using this combination?


I have heard of this too, and yes it was related to Ethernet autoneg between 
the boxes and the fix was to put a switch in the middle.  However, from what I 
understand it was fixed a few firmware versions ago (RouterOS fw).  I won't 
patronise you by asking whether you have tried a firmware update... :)

That said, my setup at home is RB750G to BT modem and that has always worked 
perfectly so there must be a limited variation or model of either Mikrotik or 
BT device that shows the issue.

Chris


On 03/04/2016 18:59, Martin Hepworth wrote:
I've seen issues with the packets from the BT modem to Mikrotikrouters, have to 
drop a small switch in between to sort out autonegotiation wiedness... maybe 
similar for you?

--
Martin Hepworth, CISSP
Oxford, UK

On 3 April 2016 at 00:14, David Freedman 
mailto:david.freed...@uk.clara.net>> wrote:





On 30/03/2016, 12:46, "uknof on behalf of David Derrick" 
mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk> on 
behalf of d...@enta.net<mailto:d...@enta.net>> wrote:

>I'm a bit stumped here

Is there any multilink going on here?

What is the end to end latency on these lines? does it vary?

Are packets actually being lost? or are they just being misordered?

Dave.

Re: [uknof] FW: [outages] Virgin Media Cambridge UK

[Peter Knapp]

Perhaps related to this?

The DINMC found that there had been a loss to a Service Destination Point (SDP) 
link between 2 x Guildford core devices, which subsequently caused a loss of 
BGP sessions to Guildford Lam 4.

A large number of SDPs were seen down on Guildford Metnet 1a, which are now 
back up as of 16:01.

The DINMC are continuing to investigate the root cause.

Further updates to follow.

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Mike Simkins
Sent: 10 February 2016 19:20
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] FW: [outages] Virgin Media Cambridge UK

Not from Harlow, UK

Start: Wed Feb 10 19:16:26 2016
HOST: Mikes-MacBook-Pro.local Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- routerlogin.net0.0%   1001.8   2.3   1.2  15.5   2.0
  2.|-- ???   100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
  3.|-- nrth-core-2b-xe-102-0.net  0.0%   100   14.9  24.6  11.3 112.9  25.1
  4.|-- ???   100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
  5.|-- nrth-bb-1c-ae0-0.network. 23.0%   100   20.5  19.0  11.8  99.6  11.1
  6.|-- tele-ic-4-ae0-0.network.v  0.0%   100   16.2  26.7  13.2 142.2  23.1
  7.|-- pos6-1.rt0.thdo.bbc.co.uk  0.0%   100   18.3  20.3  13.8 150.9  14.1
  8.|-- ???   100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
  9.|-- ae0.er01.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk   0.0%   100   18.6  21.1  14.4  66.8   6.3
 10.|-- 132.185.255.1650.0%   100   28.5  22.3  16.4  99.6   8.8
 11.|-- 212.58.246.78  0.0%   100   15.8  20.8  13.8  96.5  10.2


On 10/02/2016 17:25, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Any input here?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Outages [mailto:outages-boun...@outages.org] On Behalf Of Matt 
> Thomas via Outages
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:37 AM
> To: outa...@outages.org
> Subject: [outages] Virgin Media Cambridge UK
>
> Experiencing high packet loss with Virgin Media in Cambridge, UK, 
> anybody else seeing anything similar?
>
> HOST:Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
> 1.|-- x.x.x.x  0.0%100.4   1.0   0.3   3.9   0.9
>2.|-- x.x.x.x  0.0%105.9   8.5   0.7  12.2   3.4
>3.|-- nrth-core-2a-xe-831-0.net 52.0%10   12.0  12.1   6.6 18.1   2.9
>4.|-- ???   100.0100.0   0.0   0.0 0.0   0.0
>5.|-- brhm-bb-1c-ae1-0.network. 30.0%10   13.5  16.7  12.3 28.4   6.0
>6.|-- tcl5-ic-2-ae0-0.network.v 90.0%10   17.2  17.2  17.2 17.2   0.0
>7.|-- 212.58.239.24920.0%10   17.1  19.1  17.0 28.7   3.9
>8.|-- ???   100.0100.0   0.0   0.0 0.0   0.0
>9.|-- ae0.er01.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk  10.0%10   14.3  18.4  14.3 22.0   2.5
>   10.|-- 132.185.255.165   20.0%10   19.5  18.0  16.4 20.8   1.4
>   11.|-- 212.58.246.78 10.0%10   14.1  16.9  14.1 21.6   1.9
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
> ___
> Outages mailing list
> outa...@outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages
>
>
>

Re: [uknof] BGP configuration best practices from ANSSI and others

[Peter Knapp]

So whose volunteering to write the update?!

Peter Knapp
 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: 17 December 2015 14:16
To: Matthew Walster; Gavin Henry
Cc: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BGP configuration best practices from ANSSI and others

On 17/12/2015 13:51, Matthew Walster wrote:
> 1. Don't use uRPF on a peering router, and if you are, loose mode 
> seems pretty dumb on a full transit router.

on system which tie null0 into the urpf mechanism, this is a good means of 
implementing s/rtbh.  Strict urpf at a peering exchange is obviously bananas, 
unless you're a leaf network or if you hate your customers.  Fine at the 
customer edge; useless everywhere else.

> 2. Those are some really bad filtering examples, and if you just used 
> it as a factsheet there are missing entries which you may falsely 
> assume don't matter. Filtering all >/48 v6 prefixes seems a little odd too -- 
> why that size?

same as /24 for ipv4: it stops people who accidentally leak their entire 
interior routing table from causing damage to everyone else.

> 3. TCP MD5 for BGP. They say it's not cryptographically secure, then 
> go on to say you should use a strong password. Which? How about just 
> using the
> MD5 password as a prevention of fat-finger incidents as I imagine 90% 
> of people do (the rest assuming that it provides a level of security 
> it doesn't provide)?

md5 for bgp is a good idea at IXPs.  The reason why is that IP addresses are 
re-used from time to time and unless you clean out your old peering sessions 
regularly, you can potentially end up accidentally peering with chancers who 
spoof old members' ASNs.  Otherwise they're a bit useless, but hey, if your 
security policy demands them, there's no reason to have a fight about it.  
They're harmless.

Nick

Re: [uknof] Remote hands engineers

[Peter Knapp]

Daniel.


We use Phil Baker of LCHost and Burstfire and his fellas for our needs. Proper 
technically competent and useful crowd.

Drop him a line to discuss. p...@lchost.co.uk<mailto:%20p...@lchost.co.uk>


I believe they are more Docklands orientated but I'm sure you can discuss the 
finer points.


Cheers



Peter Knapp


C.C.S. Leeds Ltd


T: 0113 294 66 99

E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:%20peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>


-- Original message--

From: Daniel Hawkins

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:52

To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk;

Cc:

Subject:[uknof] Remote hands engineers

Re: [uknof] 10G London - Manchester (Interxion to Williams House)

[Peter Knapp]

I assume that was a typo and you meant m247 rather than 257!

Peter Knapp
 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Keeran 
Marquis
Sent: 12 October 2015 10:19
To: Simon Lockhart
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; James Bensley
Subject: Re: [uknof] 10G London - Manchester (Interxion to Williams House)

Have you tried the guys at m257? 

Cheers

Keeran Marquis

W: kd-tech.co.uk
T: 07944544679
E: k.marq...@kd-tech.co.uk

Send via iPhone

> On 12 Oct 2015, at 09:56, Simon Lockhart  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon Oct 12, 2015 at 09:44:50AM +0100, James Bensley wrote:
>> IIX / IXReach should be able to turn this up in a jiffy now they have 
>> gobbled up Allegro;
>> 
>> http://www.ixreach.com/wp-content/uploads/PoP-List.pdf
> 
> They were my firt port of call, but they're quoting 3 weeks...
> 
> Simon
> 

Re: [uknof] getting BT to update a postcode DB

[Peter Knapp]

You can see which cabinet (if any) you are connected to if you whack your 
number into

https://www.btwholesale.com/includes/adsl/main.html

If it doesn't show cabinet 43 (for example) above the table you are on a Del.


Pete



 Original message 
From: Alex Brooks 
Date: 05/10/2015 22:33 (GMT+00:00)
To: Tom Bird , uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] getting BT to update a postcode DB

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Tom Bird  wrote:
> Evening,
>
> To set the scene, my parents live in a village.  It's sort of an L shape,
> and has just gained a shiny new BT FTTC box, somewhere around the corner of
> the L.
>
> Houses down one leg of the L seem able to order this service, but from
> playing with the BT service checker widget, nobody on the other half of the
> L can, the checker just comes up with the old services, even when the house
> is right next to the box.
>
> Since they're stuck with 2 meg on a good day right now, it'd be nice to get
> them on at least a 40/10 service.  Does anyone know how many chickens I need
> to sacrifice to make this happen?  We could go as far as a goat if needed.
>

You may be able to fudge a bit more information out of Openreach by
ringing 0800 023 2023 and selecting Option 5, say you are going to
have your driveway redone and moved (including moving the dropped kerb
outside) and you want the cable maps for the property and surrounding
area.  They should email them to you.  You can normally use these to
tell which cabinet you are connected to.

The other thing you can do is submit a written complaint about
incorrect information being stored, and when that is rejected, chuck
it up to the Ombudsman.  It'll probably still get rejected but there
is a chance someone might actually look at the problem, and if not at
least BT will have to pay the fee for the Ombudsman's time.

I am assuming you have already checked on
http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/where-and-when/ and that you
don't have the dreaded "Under Review" coming up for the relevant
address?  If you are under review, you are SOL.

Regardless, complete the expression of interest form at
http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/expression-gen.aspx

Good luck,

Alex

Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

[Peter Knapp]

Virgin Sales guy clearly clueless. They do offer BGP.

However I would suggest you look towards the Tier 1s rather than the telcos.

Try NTT / GTT / Cogent. All three are present in that site.

Cheers

Peter

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
n...@bhost.net
Sent: 14 September 2015 14:08
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

Dear all,

I'd appreciate your advice. Looking for some backup transit at TeleCity 
Meridian Gate, Docklands - probably 1G on 10. Our main carrier is excellent 
(IX-Reach), but looking to diversify without breaking the bank.

Any recommendations (on or off list) would be appreciated.

I've tried the following:

BT - wildly expensive
Virgin - sales guys have no idea what BGP transit is
Colt - ridiculously pricy
Telecom Italia Sparkle - good price, have no ports free
HE - not present at Meridian Gate

Many thanks for the advice.

Nick

--
BHost - Linux VPS Hosting
www.BHost.net

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Peter Knapp]

" What absolute codswallop."

Hmm While the cited possible option may not be true, on the front line of day 
to day fault handling with BT I can assure you there is an epic volume of buck 
passing and challenged SFIs on ADSL and a massive percentage less on FTTC as 
you (BT) can see the fault condition and will attend to it rather than claiming 
it is everything other than the copper/dslam port.

I am sad to see BT owned modems not being left as an option..

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 10 September 2015 14:59
To: Gord Slater
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Tom Hill; Brandon Butterworth
Subject: Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs


> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
> 
> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark 
> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a 
> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing 
> the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.

What absolute codswallop.

"Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs fixing 
then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would assert we make 
more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't. 

In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given the 
lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it was 
felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable. 
It's a very different world now. 

[uknof] Softswitch Recommendations?

[Peter Knapp]

Hello folks.

I'm asking in a couple of places and if you are prepared to reply I'm happy 
that it is off list if you prefer, and I will create a summary anonymously and 
post to the list for the benefit of the community if you choose to reply 
directly.

However I'm looking for a (replacement) Class4/5 softwitch vendor with reseller 
capabilities as we are being badly let down by our present provider and looking 
to truckroll a complete replacement.

To remove the smaller products lets put this at 10k extensions, and 500 
concurrent calls absolute minimum, so I'm not talking a multi-tenanted 3CX 
solution or similar, but a proper Service Provider platform scalable into 10s 
of K extensions etc. Billing engines and suchlike would be useful but not 
imperative at this stage.

Would dearly welcome product suggestions along with any thoughts on support 
competency and effectiveness too please.

Many thanks in advance,

Pete

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Peter Knapp]

" Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)"

Robin, I can assure you it isn’t only you. The absolute winner for us is the 
fault ownership as you've already detailed and indeed the fault management and 
recovery process without the passing of the buck which tends to dominate ADSL 
delivery issues.

I'm personally quite sad and wish it remained as an option, even if separately 
costed.

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Robin 
Williams
Sent: 07 September 2015 15:27
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

What are the thoughts of smaller OR CPs represented here regarding the 
withdrawal of Openreach FTTC CPEs as an option?

To me it seems like a backward step, and while the big volume boys may well 
want to provide their own quad play CPEs (and avoid having two boxes etc), for 
smaller operators, the Openreach provided CPE had a lot of benefits - it was a 
circuit provided end-to-end by Openreach which included the CPE equipment as 
part of the support.

The removal of the option to receive the CPE means we go back to the line-only 
'please check your equipment' and SFI visits days (arguing whose fault it is).  
It also means for each site install the CP needs to send out an engineer to 
site with a CPE (smaller CPs may not always have local engineering), or 
alternatively use costly BT project managed services for 'while we're here' 
installation, meaning more cash goes to Openreach by default.

It feels somewhat as if this is a decision which has been made with larger 
operators in mind.  It would seem to make more sense if the supported CPE was 
an order option rather than withdrawing it entirely.

If this is something people are concerned about, it's worth raising your 
concerns with your Openreach CRM, the OTA (http://www.offta.org.uk/) and the 
FCS (http://www.fcs.org.uk/ - the FCS attend Openreach forums on behalf of 
small CPs).  It was indicated to us that sufficient voices may change the 
stance.

Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)

Cheers,
Robin.

Re: [uknof] Airflow management blanks

[Peter Knapp]

They are a stupid price, I agree.

If you fancy a spot of DIY, you can create full rack blanks for around £7 each.

Have a search for Correx Corrugated Plastic Fire Retardant. It is also known as 
Fluted Plastic. You can get it 2mm and 4mm thick and the 4mm is about strong 
enough to use in a rack, although to be fair in full sheets we used the 2mm 
stuff by popping a number of cage nuts/screws through it to pin it down. We put 
a couple of 1U metal blanks behind it to stop it bowing too much.

It is a tad of a cheap and cheerful approach, but when you need to blank an 
entire new suite, it actually serves the purpose very well for the money, so 
long as you don't mind getting busy with a straight edge and knife.

Cheers,

Peter 

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Martin 
Hannigan
Sent: 28 April 2015 19:01
To: Jon Dixon
Cc: UKNOF
Subject: Re: [uknof] Airflow management blanks


The corrugated, flimsy, plastic ones "might" work. The problem is 
pressurization. Most I've seen fail and end up bending and creating gaps. Your 
data center may have contractual language that you are required to have blanks 
and maintain them adequately. I used them once. I replaced them once. 
With respect to cost of metal blanks. Wholeheartedly agree. That's why I 
designed and made my own e.g. a cost reduction of 90%. 
Best,
-M<


On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jon Dixon  wrote:
The data-centre I was in yesterday used the plastic ones from CannonTech and 
they looked very up to the job.

Am I the only person on here that thinks all the current blanking solutions are 
very expensive for what you get? After all its just a piece of fire-proof 
plastic?

Jon Dixon


On 28/04/2015 15:59, Mike Hughes wrote:
Greetings UKNOF folks...

I'm after some of those lightweight "corrugated cardboard" (can't think of what 
else to call them) blanking sheets to put in racks to stop hot/cold aisle 
"rebreathing".

Want to give these a go, but keep coming up on metal blanking plates.

Anyone got a manufacturer/supplier that you're able to share?

Cheers
Mike

Re: [uknof] Airflow management blanks

[Peter Knapp]

Agree on the APC ones.

We have large panels (power coated aluminium) for large sections (whole empty 
racks etc) and then a couple of thousand of the APC ones. Indeed the last two 
cases we bought after pressuring everyone we knew, eBuyer beat them all on 
price by a small amount.

We've tried all the plastic board ones and suchlike and found you had to stick 
or tack them down to block any sensible level of airflow as they tended to sag 
and curl at the corners or on larger sheets of them.

Cheers,

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Ross
Sent: 28 April 2015 16:33
Cc: UKNOF
Subject: Re: [uknof] Airflow management blanks

I have used these at $previous job for a 400 rack site and they worked out 
well. We found many of the other types to leak air and need clips that run off 
to never be found again.

These just clip in, no seperate parts.

http://www.ebuyer.com/188594-apc-modular-toolless-rack-blanking-panel-black-1u-19-200pk-ar8136blk200


Brian.

On 28 April 2015 at 16:13, Rob Greenwood  wrote:
> +1 for eziblank.
>
> http://www.comms-express.com/products/eziblank-6u-blanking-panels-pk-1
> 0-black-60-x-1u/
>
> -Rob
>
>> On 28 Apr 2015, at 16:11, James Parker  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I’ve used some of these in the past..
>>
>> http://www.edpeurope.com/en/product/eziblank-blanking-panel-solutions
>> /eziblank-blanking-panel-sheets
>>
>> http://cablegrommet.co.uk/product/blanking_sheet/
>>
>> http://cablegrommet.co.uk/product/100u_blanking_pack/
>>
>> Or perhaps ‘full, but alarmingly quiet in here' printed ones:
>>
>> http://www.cableorganizer.com/polargy/polarflex-blanking-panels/
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> James.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [uknof] UPC BGP communities

[Peter Knapp]

So you asked them, they said only blackhole and you thought "I know I'll ask 
everyone on a forum if their response was a lie"

Really?



Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Alexandru 
Suciu
Sent: 13 February 2015 14:38
To: James Bensley; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] UPC BGP communities

Yes, yes I didthey said they only have the blackhole one, and this is what 
worries me.
and this is why I am asking here.

On 2/13/2015 4:34 PM, James Bensley wrote:
> Have you asked them?
>
>
> James.
>

Re: [uknof] Openreach Ethernet price reductions - when do they take effect?

[Peter Knapp]

Openreach advise of two dates for new pricing. The date applicable to new 
orders and then the date applicable to existing.

They are around two months apart if I recall correctly. The recent glossy 
brochure is in a heap somewhere at work and I can check for sure what the gap 
is if you like.

It applies equally to five year too.

It is applied automatically.

Cheers


Peter Knapp




 Original message 
From: Simon Lockhart 
Date:28/01/2015 23:23 (GMT+00:00)
To: UK Network Operators Forum 
Cc:
Subject: [uknof] Openreach Ethernet price reductions - when do they take effect?

All,

I've not managed to find a definitive answer to this on the Openreach website,
and although we've asked our account manager, I'm not sure I believe his
answer (some of which contradicts what I can find on the Openreach website).
Therefore, I thought I'd ask the collective...

When Openreach reduces the pricing on an Ethernet product (e.g. EAD), does
that price change automatically get applied to existing circuits? If so, when?

Say, for example, we had an EAD100-LA delivered on 1/4/13. Install cost is
GBP 1950.00, and annual rental is GBP 2131.20. Openreach reduced their prices
on 1/5/13, such that the annual rental is then GBP 1605.00. Should we see that
price reduction reflected immediately, or after the initial 12 month term, or
not at all.

What about if we ordered a circuit on a 5 year term? If Openreach reduce the
price for the 5 year term product, do we get the new pricing immediately from
the effective date of the change, or after the initial 5 year term on the
circuit has expired, or not at all?

Our account manager says the new pricing takes effect automatically from the
effective date, even if we're in the middle of a 5 year term. I don't believe
that, particularly not for the 5 year term products. My suspicion is that the
pricing which was in effect at the time of ordering is what we pay for the
full time that we retain that circuit.

Can anyone clarify this at all, based on experience?

Many thanks,

Simon

Re: [uknof] Level3 helpful person

[Peter Knapp]

To be fair fella (and gals if there are any of you) I can completely 
understand. The transit is spot on in the largest part but support or any 
issues are a pain in the butt.
We tried to change a gig port for a ten gig recently utilising the same fibre 
with as much downtime as they wanted (in TH) and it proved almost impossible.  
The hassle was that great we ended up funding THs fibre boys for some more 
despite the L3 end being to the same ODF as the last gig one so clearly only 
needing re patching their end but no proved all but impossible.
That said our AM is a decent chap but post sales support less than acceptable.

Pete






 Original message 
From: Tom Hill 
Date:04/01/2015 23:14 (GMT+00:00)
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Cc:
Subject: Re: [uknof] Level3 helpful person

On 04/01/15 09:39, Thomas Greer wrote:
> Unknown who account manager is… Trying to find that out :) Do you
> have a copy of the escalation matrix?

This is more of a formality; just ask support to escalate the ticket.
You can find out whom your AM is later (or ask support, or I can put you
in the direction of mine - he may be able to help).

And yes Mr. Russell, there are still some good eggs further up the
support chain at Level3. They will take notice, but only when you invoke
the magic words... :)

--
Tom

Re: [uknof] High Density Wifi

[Peter Knapp]

I spent quite a while on this with a couple of larger multi-vendor WAP 
distributors and they have clients of the big exhibition centres and music 
venues, and they use extremely steerable APs with shielding, much as you do 
with an audio line array if you are familiar, and don't have anywhere near the 
number of users per AP you are citing.

Since then we took on a football stadium and following their advice were 
deploying active densities in the order of half the numbers you are suggesting 
as the ACK time and in air RF interference / xtalk destroys throughput 
otherwise.

Hope that helps..

Peter Knapp


From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 09 December 2014 11:31
To: Richard Savage
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] High Density Wifi

I used their equipment as a $user rather than operator (couple of events) and 
was impressed - then had a bit of a play with the, I think, 6000 AP at MWC. Not 
deployed but on the shortlist to look at further - don't really see many folks 
taking this approach.

On 9 Dec 2014, at 10:30, Richard Savage 
mailto:richard.sav...@timico.co.uk>> wrote:
Hi

Im currently looking at some high density Wifi to support greater than 500 
users per AP, probably looking in the region of 1 to 2 thousand per AP.

Is there any manufactures that people have used before and would recommend?  
Have come across Xirrus and wondered what people thought of them?

Many thanks

Rich
This e-mail is sent on behalf of Timico Partner Services Limited, a company 
registered in England and Wales, registered number 03128506, registered office 
Beacon Hill Park, Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG24 2TN and regulated by Ofcom. The 
information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the use 
of that individual or entity to which it is addressed. Unauthorised use, 
dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication is 
strictly prohibited. If you receive this in error, please notify us by email to 
priv...@timico.co.uk<mailto:priv...@timico.co.uk> and delete any copies. For 
information about how we process data and monitor communications please see our 
privacy 
statement<http://www.timico.co.uk/downloads/terms/Privacy_Statement.pdf>.

Re: [uknof] Vodafone UK/AS25135, 1.2.3.50 O RLY?

[Peter Knapp]

Greg.

Im buying your arguement re 1918 space for the handsets but surely if you stuck 
a 1918 10x range on each HLG even the biggest mobile op would have space?


Pete


 Original message 
From: Greg Choules 
Date:17/09/2014 01:56 (GMT+02:00)
To: Alexander Harrowell ,uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Cc:
Subject: Re: [uknof] Vodafone UK/AS25135, 1.2.3.50 O RLY?

My *guess* is that there are insufficient RFC1918 (v4) addresses to go around 
both 3G and 4G mobile terminals and since everything that needs to go 
externally will be NATed to a public IP anyway it doesn't matter what is used 
between your handset and VF's packet core. Anything you choose potentially 
looks like you are squatting on someone else's space. At least they picked what 
looked like an unannounced (at the time) prefix.

Greg

-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Alexander 
Harrowell
Sent: 16 September 2014 14:44
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Vodafone UK/AS25135, 1.2.3.50 O RLY?

I was a little surprised, using Vodafone LTE as a backup link yesterday 
morning, to see "Read 1.2.3.50" from my web browser.
1.2.3.50 isn't a Vodafone netblock and is actually an APNIC debogon.
Squatting in 1/8 is a bit dated isn't it?

Seems to be some sort of proxy listening on 80 and 25.

whois 1.2.3.50
% [whois.apnic.net]
% Whois data copyright termshttp://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html

% Information related to '1.2.3.0 - 1.2.3.255'

inetnum:1.2.3.0 - 1.2.3.255
netname:Debogon-prefix
descr:  APNIC Debogon Project
descr:  APNIC Pty Ltd
country:AU
admin-c:AR302-AP
tech-c: AR302-AP
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-routes: MAINT-AU-APNIC-GM85-AP
mnt-irt:IRT-APNICRANDNET-AU
status: ASSIGNED PORTABLE
changed:hm-chan...@apnic.net 20110922
source: APNIC

irt:IRT-APNICRANDNET-AU
address:PO Box 3646
address:South Brisbane, QLD 4101
address:Australia
e-mail: ab...@apnic.net
abuse-mailbox:  ab...@apnic.net
admin-c:AR302-AP
tech-c: AR302-AP
auth:   # Filtered
mnt-by: MAINT-AU-APNIC-GM85-AP
changed:hm-chan...@apnic.net 20110922
source: APNIC

role:   APNIC RESEARCH
address:PO Box 3646
address:South Brisbane, QLD 4101
address:Australia
country:AU
phone:  +61-7-3858-3188
fax-no: +61-7-3858-3199
e-mail: resea...@apnic.net
remarks:++
remarks:+ Address blocks listed with this contact
remarks:+ are withheld from general use and are
remarks:+ only routed briefly for passive testing.
remarks:+
remarks:+ If you are receiving unwanted traffic
remarks:+ it is almost certainly spoofed source
remarks:+ or hijacked address usage.
remarks:+
remarks:+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
remarks:+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_internet_registry
remarks:+
remarks:++
nic-hdl:AR302-AP
tech-c: AH256-AP
admin-c:AH256-AP
mnt-by: MAINT-APNIC-AP
changed:hm-chan...@apnic.net 20110822
source: APNIC

% This query was served by the APNIC Whois Service version
1.69.1-APNICv1r0 (WHOIS4)




This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for the 
personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and 
may be legally privileged.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may not 
review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the 
original message.

Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author only. 
Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create any 
legally binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created by 
the exchange of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative 
of Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Hutchison 3G UK Limited is a company registered in 
England and Wales with company number 3885486.  Registered Office Star House, 
20 Grenfell Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 1EH

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media Products

[Peter Knapp]

And heaven help you if you centre around Telehouse when any maintenance at 
Poplar means youve got a customer notification list of hundreds or thousands.

We learned that pretty quickly and home regionally on a selection of pops now 
thankfully


Peter Knapp



 Original message 
From: Howard Jones 
Date:16/09/2014 22:58 (GMT+02:00)
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Cc:
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Media Products

On 16/09/2014 20:19, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 16/09/14 13:56, Chris Russell wrote:
>>   IPVPN - VM version of IPClear (over 3G, Broadband, etc etc)
> Including National Ethernet, too. 20Mbit lines terminated on Alcatel
> NTEs *and* 3900 ISR G2s.
>
> *grumbles at rack utilisation*
>
Also, don't bother with National Ethernet if you want an 'always up'
line - there is a weekly maintenance window that gets used for something
most weeks, as far as I can tell. If you have a number of these
circuits, most wednesday mornings will greet you with a mail from
someone asking about ospf flaps overnight.

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media Products

[Peter Knapp]

EE ccts are the equivalent of EAD and I dont believe we've a single one 
installed without either pstn or adsl management  dependent on age or in sites 
with other services an ethernet management service.

Never had more bother with EE than any others and we've got lots.

EE+ is switched so 'benefits' from usual firmware upgrade and maintenance 
issues.

Dependent on your AM you might be able to get either if these for the same 
price as NE if you want them but they are often more expensive than NE 
otherwise.

EE had the added err benefit thats its DF e2e so can err be used for err other 
purposes if needed..

Pete



 Original message 
From: David Simmons 
Date:16/09/2014 21:42 (GMT+02:00)
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Cc:
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Media Products

IIRC we only Use Ethernet Extension+ not Ethernet Extension as the latter are 
not managed unless a bell circuit is installed and we have had terrible issues 
with faults on this type of line, whereas EE+ is basically National Ethernet 
for Metro areas/franchises as mentioned.

IP VPN, and Ethernet VPN are Layer 3 products if I remember when they were 
explained to me by my VM account manager, with private IP addressing.

Dave

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Peter Knapp]

What the chuff. 

They seriously wanted to charge almost four hundred quid to add an IP block??

Peter Knapp



-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Candler
Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing Easynet 
100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but would charge 
£395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside.

Regards,

Brian.

Re: [uknof] Openreach Modem Issue

[Peter Knapp]

There are various firmware issues with early V6 on RB2011’s.

If you update them past 6.11 (or it might be 6.14) the issue “goes away”.

We use them gig port auto neg into FTTC modems without issue in this fashion

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Stuart 
Howlette
Sent: 27 August 2014 10:55
To: Richard Halfpenny
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Openreach Modem Issue

I wish I could say thats the worst thing I've seen a MikroTik do but I'd be 
lying through my teeth

On 27 August 2014 10:52, Richard Halfpenny 
mailto:richard.halfpe...@exa-networks.co.uk>>
 wrote:
On 27/08/2014 10:36, Stuart Howlette wrote:
> /interface ethernet set auto-negotation=no speed= duplex=
>
> Unless I'm missing something, that works fine
Nope, the modem wants to autoneg.. force 100M/FULL and the link doesn't
come up at all.  Leave it to autoneg and the most you get is 10M/FULL.

Rich.

Network Operations
Exa Networks Ltd :: AS30740
richard.halfpe...@exa-networks.co.uk<mailto:richard.halfpe...@exa-networks.co.uk>



--

Stuart Howlette
stu...@gmail.com<mailto:stu...@gmail.com>

Re: [uknof] Lab DC Power Supply Cisco ASR901

[Peter Knapp]

Either a telco rectifier pack for official -48v dc. I guess you might already 
have them or there are a gazillion on eblag.

Or if you  are happy with 24v dc, something like this:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/24V-DC-3-AMP-2-1mm-POWER-SUPPLY-ADAPTOR-CCTV-CAMERA-3A-/321204593187?pt=UK_CCTV&hash=item4ac9492223

Amphenol connectors are available in 3 and 6 way in RS/Maplin/CPC/a.n.other if 
you are happy to chop the lead up and make it yourself.

If you have a rummage, a few laptops run on 24v dc so you might just have 
something knocking about there already.

Peter Knapp


From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Richard 
Savage
Sent: 14 August 2014 13:47
To: 'uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk'
Subject: [uknof] Lab DC Power Supply Cisco ASR901

Hi

I am testing some new Cisco ASR901’s and need to find a suitable DC power 
supply that will power them up in a lab environment.  The ASR 901-12C-F-D says 
that it will accept:

1 GE models:
● DC-input voltage rating: 24 VDC, -48 VDC, -60 VDC
● DC-input current rating: 2.5A maximum for non- TDM variants and 3.0A maximum 
for TDM variants

Power connector
6-position 2-tier stacked connector comprising two feeds, A and B DC power 
(AMPHENOL ELVA06100), and 3‑position mating connectors for each feed (AMPHENOL 
ELVP03100)

Does anyone have any suggestions to a Lab DC power supply?

Thanks

Rich

Richard Savage
Senior Network Engineer
Timico Partners
Carnac Lodge, Cams Estate, Fareham, Hampshire, PO16 8UJ

Web: www.partners.timico.co.uk<http://www.partners.timico.co.uk/>

Timico Partner Services Limited. Co.Reg. No: 03128506
[Timico]<http://www.partners.timico.co.uk/>


This e-mail is sent on behalf of Timico Partner Services Limited, a company 
registered in England and Wales, registered number 03128506, registered office 
Beacon Hill Park, Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG24 2TN and regulated by Ofcom. The 
information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the use 
of that individual or entity to which it is addressed. Unauthorised use, 
dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication is 
strictly prohibited. If you receive this in error, please notify us by email to 
priv...@timico.co.uk<mailto:priv...@timico.co.uk> and delete any copies. For 
information about how we process data and monitor communications please see our 
privacy 
statement<http://www.timico.co.uk/downloads/terms/Privacy_Statement.pdf>.

Re: [uknof] TTB QoS

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

I asked just the same question not that long ago and received the same answer - 
they don't.

That left us stuck with MPLS over the top or rate based reservation (which is 
pretty shady on EFM given the sync speeds varying)

Peter Knapp
 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Robin 
Williams
Sent: 06 August 2014 14:17
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] TTB QoS

Anyone on list know how TTB wholesale deals with QoS?  It's not mentioned in 
the product handbooks that I have.

On some links (EFM in-particular) we're tagging EF DSCP on voice traffic in 
both directions (towards the CPE and at the interconnects), but still 
experiencing jitter/loss on occasion (when the access circuit is maxed).  On 
asking tech support/acct managers/product specialists/TTB escalations, they're 
all telling me that there is no QoS provision on standard TTB L2 services.  I 
find it hard to believe, if they really aren't doing any differentiated 
queueing on EFM circuits based on DSCP/COS values, that no one else has 
experienced quality of service issues when converging voice and data?  I know 
they use RAD CPEs for EFM, but the Hatteras/Actelis kit that I've used in the 
past come with a standard CoS profile by default so it's simples.  I'm not 
asking for marking or anything clever, just some differentiated queueing on the 
lowest bandwidth link in the chain?  Am I crazy?

Cheers,
Robin.

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

[Peter Knapp]

Hmm interesting Tom.

The last one we actually spent any time on was only a few months old - probably 
early this year and that definitely won't..

Peter Knapp


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Tom Bird
Sent: 02 May 2014 10:22
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

On 02/05/14 10:16, Peter Knapp wrote:
> As Gary says.
>
> However please note that it doesn't put SSH or SNMP ports into 
> pass-thru and maintains these as captive on the router so it isn't a 
> 100% bridge (just to naff you off if you want to SNMP a device behind 
> it from the outside)

It may depend on age, I have a late 2011 vintage superhub in modem mode, and 
ssh & snmp both pass through successfully to the 2821 behind it.

--
Tom

:: www.portfast.co.uk / @portfast
:: hosted services, domains, virtual machines, consultancy

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

There is only one (fairly sticky) IP on a residential VM service. We have (not 
by choice) quite a stack of Mikrotiks’ behind VM routers in bridge mode, and 
essentially we have to create a VPN tunnel from the MT to “our end” to gain 
access to SNMP and SSH on the MT.

If you SSH to the IP that is supposedly bridged to the MT you get an obvious 
dropped session (which doesn’t show in a wireshark between the MT and VM 
router). Same applies to SNMP. Even if you enable the SNMP on the VM box in 
none bridge mode, you can’t (via the gui and from what I recall via SSH either) 
enable it on the outside interface.

That’s it in summary. Nothing too clever.

Peter Knapp


From: aled.w.mor...@googlemail.com [mailto:aled.w.mor...@googlemail.com] On 
Behalf Of Aled Morris
Sent: 02 May 2014 10:23
To: Peter Knapp
Cc: Martin J. Levy; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

On 2 May 2014 10:16, Peter Knapp 
mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>> wrote:
As Gary says.

However please note that it doesn't put SSH or SNMP ports into pass-thru and 
maintains these as captive on the router so it isn't a 100% bridge (just to 
naff you off if you want to SNMP a device behind it from the outside)

I'm intrigued by this (though I don't have VM so this is purely an academic 
inquiry)

I'd have thought that as a "modem" the VM box would be doing a simple media 
conversion between DOCSIS cable and Ethernet, like a L2 bridge.

The new router, behind the modem, would be doing the DHCP or PPPoE or whatever 
is needed to get L3 connectivity into the VM network, right?  Is there MAC 
address spoofing going on too?

So how is the "modem" interacting at L3?  What IP address does it use in order 
to speak SSH and SNMP?

Aled

Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

[Peter Knapp]

As Gary says.

However please note that it doesn't put SSH or SNMP ports into pass-thru and 
maintains these as captive on the router so it isn't a 100% bridge (just to 
naff you off if you want to SNMP a device behind it from the outside)

Peter Knapp
 

-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Gary Steers
Sent: 02 May 2014 10:13
To: Martin J. Levy; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

Hi Martin,

If you login it gives you the option to put it in modem mode, if that is not 
there then you may need to call VM to force a firmware upgrade to show the 
option.

This will disable the wireless and all other router functions and turn it into 
a modem.

Gary Steers
Chief Network Engineer | Sharedband

-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Martin J. 
Levy
Sent: 02 May 2014 10:10
To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Media - router vs modem?

Hello UK-hive-mind,

Long time reader; first time poster. (Well to this list anyway!).

I've just brought over an 802.11ac router to the UK and realized the Virgin 
Media broadband "superhub" (it's a netgear box) is a router/wifi box. I want to 
run the new box as the router. It's just an Ethernet box; no cable-modem.

Is there a prescribed way to run a connection with Virgin Media in modem mode 
using their own box; ie run your own router? Do I need to but a modem? The 
"superhub" seems to be remotely managed. I don't want to go change things too 
much.

Thoughts?

Martin


-- SHAREDBAND EMAIL DISCLAIMER --
Email Disclaimer: http://sharedband.com/email-disclaimer/

Shared Band Ltd T/A Sharedband Ltd
Registered in England No 04861356, VAT No GB822654826 Registered Office: 40 
Princes St, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 1RJ UK

Sharedband Technologies, LLC
2033 6th Avenue, Suite 902, Seattle, WA, 98121 US

Re: [uknof] Vodafone / SureSignal contact

[Peter Knapp]

Gary.

This was our last approach, although it took joining their Twitter and 
badgering them something rotten to get them to respond to the thread on the SS 
forum, and still took a couple of weeks to be addressed..

Cheers

Peter Knapp


From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Jamie 
Walmsley
Sent: 29 April 2014 13:27
To: Gary Steers
Cc: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Vodafone / SureSignal contact

I had this issue a couple of years ago - I ended up posting on the Sure signal 
section of their official forums and a vodafone mod who replied passed on the 
affected IP range(s) to the correct team for white listing (who resolved it 
fairly quickly)

Might be worth trying that approach if you dont have any luck via other contact 
methods.

Re: [uknof] repeated spam from UK Webhosting Ltd/misp.co.uk

[Peter Knapp]

Paul.

He's not the "right person" but I've just got a message over to Dan @ Paragon 
who is about to go and poke some appropriate people.

Cheers

Peter Knapp
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk
 
Registered in England, # 350 7910


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul 
Mansfield
Sent: 17 April 2014 17:04
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] repeated spam from UK Webhosting Ltd/misp.co.uk

Does anyone know anyone at AS8089-RIPE ("Paragon Internet Group and
Subsidiaries") who can do something about their hosted customer who's 
repeatedly spammed?

we keep getting a load of crap about social media marketing from what appears 
to be a virtual server on their network.

Re: [uknof] Rack Recommendations

[Peter Knapp]

Quote: "One of my out and out pet hates is circuits delivered as just flying 
tails with plugs on the end, left hanging in  a hapazard manner around the 
cabinet, with no proper termination or strain relief."

Yeah, including Telehouse when they ignore "put them in the patch panel"...

Peter

Re: [uknof] Hot Acton Action

[Peter Knapp]

Have you asked Colt for their price?

London ccts pricing is very respectable..

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ben Ward
Sent: 20 February 2014 12:41
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Hot Acton Action

Hello NOFfers,

We're trying to get ~100Mbps into to COLT's Acton datacentre from Telecity 
Acton (Powergate) or Telehouse North.

Apart from an EAD between the two, does anyone have a better or cheaper 
solution?

Thanks
Ben
--
b...@crouchingbadger.com<mailto:b...@crouchingbadger.com> | 
http://www.crouchingbadger.com

Re: [uknof] DNS/NTP , a solution !

[Peter Knapp]

It would also be useful to be able to run resolver scans via ASN or larger 
block reports too. Limited to a /22 takes a fair old while.

Peter Knapp
 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Robin 
Williams
Sent: 13 February 2014 18:05
To: Keith Mitchell
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] DNS/NTP , a solution !

On 13/02/14 17:14, Keith Mitchell wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 06:37 PM, Wright, Matthew wrote:
>> List of open NTP servers from http://openntpproject.org/
> Also http://www.openresolverproject.org
>
> But it's not just about NTP and DNS, pretty much any UDP-based service 
> that can do amplification is in play, e.g SNMP, Chargen and I've even 
> seen "QOTD" (UDP 19).
>
>


Yep, one that hit us the other week was UDP Chargen. After seeing the source 
port in flows, I tried a few of them on TCP 19 as well, and to my surprise, 
there it was.  And there was me thinking Chargen was a thing of the 80's!

It'd be nice to be able to automatically pull the full lists from these various 
scanning projects to use in statistical analysis as part of DDoS mitigation 
(i.e. if my traffic has just shot up and the majority of it is coming from IPs 
listed in these databases, I can take a pretty fair bet at what's happening and 
start to rate limit or temporarily block these sources).  Anyone know if there 
is an interface for automated downloading of the raw data? Is anyone involved 
in these projects on list?  It looks like you can request the data manually at 
the moment.

It'd also be good to discuss merging data from these projects into an upstream 
'open-generalbadstuff-project'.

Cheers,
Robin

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Peter Knapp]

Same applies to the annex M versions. 

New fw needs bootloading onto adsl module at startup. We have loads of 877Ms 
like this and they work fine. 


Peter Knapp
 
Director

C.C.S. (Leeds) Ltd
Unit A
Seacroft Trade Park
Coal Road
Leeds
LS14 2AQ
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


-Original Message-
From: Mike Jenkins 
Sender: 
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:54:38 
To: Mike Simpson
Cc: Haroldo F. Jardim; 
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Neil J. 
McRae; steve.hous...@itps.co.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem



>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> 
>>> I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>>> controller for a couple of years now without any problems.
>> 
>> Haroldo,
>> 
>> 
>> Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?
>> 
>> One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
>> free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
>> and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
>> ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
>> CPE/DSLAMS.
>> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
>> roll out.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Neil.
> 
> The issue was in the 870s with a wierd interaction between the Alcatel modem 
> chipset "STMI" and the Huawei MSAN "IFTN"
> 
> Cisco moved to Broadcom chipsets for their newer kit which have proven to be 
> *much* better both in the 800 series and in the HWIC
> 
The 870 issue was solved ages ago. Cisco released updated firmware for the 
Alcatel chipset and it works fine. We still have loads of these deployed and 
behaving very well. They've got a poor reputation as a result of this but they 
don't really deserve it.

Mike

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Peter Knapp]

We too mix Cogent in the blend. Used to use them for customer routes only at 
first but now they are in none preferenced natural BGP blend and can't recall 
the last bother. 

Helpdesk a million times more responsive than L3 or Gblx ever are/were and they 
even beat NTT and Telia in response. 

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend today and you can push some serious prices too 
if you've a bit of commit to play with..


Peter Knapp
 
Director

C.C.S. (Leeds) Ltd
Unit A
Seacroft Trade Park
Coal Road
Leeds
LS14 2AQ
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


-Original Message-
From: Daniel Austin 
Sender: 
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:43:16 
To: 
Reply-To: 
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

On 25/10/2013 20:40, Scott Weeks wrote:
>>> Cogent say their transit is out via slough - and thats sort
>>> of not london but also I am crazy about having Cogent again.
>
>> We have Cogent in at Everest as part of our house-transit mix.
>> It does indeed go out via Slough, at LD4/LD5. They have improved
>> immeasurably over the last few years IMO.
>
> :: +1 - Cogent should be London proof and we've had a good experience
> over the last couple of years with them in our BGP mix
> 
>
>
> I'm surprised to hear this.  I thought they had trouble getting
> to the entire internet due to the numerous, and likely on-going
> still, peering wars.  Is that not the case anymore?

We've also found them to be very good, and extremely helpful support too.
Not had too many issues (we've certainly had a lot more issues with 
Level3 than Cogent!)

I'd be happy to recommend them.

(we take Cogent BGP feed in TCR, and Level3 in TCW)


Thanks,

Dan.

Re: [uknof] Media Converters

[Peter Knapp]

Much like yourselves, dirty word, however needs must.

How about these with the frame you can see in the back of the picture. We have 
them where "needs must" and have never had any bother.

http://alliedtelesis.co.uk/mediaconverters

Peter Knapp
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk
 
Registered in England, # 350 7910


-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of James Bensley
Sent: 11 October 2013 15:46
To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Media Converters

Hi list,

Its a bit of a dirty phrase "media converters" but thats life. I have to use 
them from time to time to connect with other networks/customers/providers that 
won't play ball. I can't always blame it on others though, we all make 
mistakes, like dropping a new connection into a PoP which is out of  the 
correct port type :) *

I was wondering if anyone can recommend a small 1-to-2u rack mount unit that is 
a copper/fibre media converter for 6 or 8 connections. In my head I can imagine 
a switch with half copper ports and half SFP/SFP+ slots. Something I can drop 
into a central PoP.

Anyone using anything like this they can recommend? I have found a few results 
via search engines but nothing stands out.

Many thanks,
James.

* Yeah that happened once, shit happens.

Re: [uknof] Level3 packet loss today and 3rd October

[Peter Knapp]

Hiya.

It wasn't just into Gyron /Centro. We pick up Level(2) in GS2 over L3's own 
fibre and its been lousy from around 09:30 to circa 14:00 with odd bits of 
trouble since.

Amusingly they lost peering with Cogent for a while completely - oh days gone 
by!

Peter Knapp
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk
 
Registered in England, # 350 7910


-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Gavin Henry
Sent: 09 October 2013 18:13
To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Level3 packet loss today and 3rd October

Hi all,

Did anyone else see loss today (10:20 to 1pm) and last Thursday into Gyron 
/Centro ?

Trying to get an answer from our current hosting company before we move to our 
own network where we will have Level3 as one of our transit providers.  Have 
asked our account manager too but since we're not a full customer yet I don't 
think we'll get details.

Thanks.

Re: [uknof] Remote control 24 way PDU's?

[Peter Knapp]

Raritan are worth a look:

http://www.raritan.com/products/power-management/px-2000/

Cheers

Peter Knapp
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk
 
Registered in England, # 350 7910


-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Gavin Henry
Sent: 28 September 2013 13:59
To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Remote control 24 way PDU's?

Hi all,

Looking for recommendations for 24-way PDU's that you can remote control. Power 
usage over a period for billing reasons not needed.

Thanks.

--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.

Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

[Peter Knapp]

They won't do it - or I haven't managed to get them to.

10gig in <> 10gig out

Sadly they won't deliver (us) multiple gigs vlanned or not over a 10gig uplink.

To be fair with a multi-site order recently the order built as 10gig uplink, 
and a slab of x rate on gigs and our VM provisioning guy went ahead and 
processed it - right until it came to network build when he was told to order a 
dozen bits of TH fibre and deliver them port to port. Thankfully I spotted this 
stupidity before they actually went and coughed up for the TH fibre and it was 
delivered vlanned over an existing 10 then. Sometimes they don't have the 
brains they should have been borne with..

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: Darren O'Connor [mailto:darre...@outlook.com]
Sent: 12 August 2013 21:31
To: Ben King; Peter Knapp
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: RE: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased 
line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Perhaps I need to do more hassling... Our VM handoffs are pretty much all THE

Checking the specsheet of the 6850 they do indeed have 2X10Gb ports. Even if 
they only wanted to hand 1Gb ports to us I'm surprised they aren't using a 10Gb 
interface back to their cabs. Possible cost of kit on that side?

Thanks

Darren
www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie<http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie>

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:20:15 +0100
From: b...@warwicknet.com<mailto:b...@warwicknet.com>
To: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
CC: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>; 
darre...@outlook.com<mailto:darre...@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased 
line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Yeh I agree, we have them in Birmingham now, and manchester has been promised, 
however they won't do THE yet for us - sigh...
On 12 August 2013 21:17, Peter Knapp 
mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>> wrote:
Darren.

VM definitely do 10gig uplinks, but only on certain Metnets.

They still go via a 6850 (two SFP+ ports on them, one for VM, one for us/you).

We have them in THN, THE and off Leeds too (after some hassle and an upgrade 
their end)

Hassle them!

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk> 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk>]
 On Behalf Of Darren O'Connor
Sent: 12 August 2013 21:05
To: Charlie Boisseau; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased 
line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Virgin have given us (two so far) Alcatel 6850s which have 24 X Gig ports as 
mentioned. We use these for vlan based circuits so one physical port can hold 
10 X100Mb links. We can pack quite  lot of links into 1U

We've asked VM for 10Gb uplinks before and they are still telling us not yet. 
IT would be ideal considering the amount of 1Gb uplinks we have with them.

Darren
www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie<http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie>

From: char...@fluency.net.uk<mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:38:08 +
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line 
fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]
Sorry to change the subject a bit, but this thread has reminded me of something 
I thought I might ask:

Some of our PoPs are filling up at an alarming rate with Virgin Alcatel demarc 
boxes that only have one or two ports used.  This is mainly because we have a 
number of circuits that are on 1Gig bearers, and the Alcatel boxes only have 
two gigabit ports (one NNI and one UNI), so typically a 1G customer circuit 
will take up 1U of rackspace (nevermind a separate fibre cross connect to the 
Virgin ODF).

Having said that, strangely we just had a new circuit installed into one of our 
PoPs that ended up terminating on a LightningEdge LE-311.  At least that box 
has 4 gig ports - but it's an absolute monster compared to the Alcatel.

The old Pandatel card+chassis based solution was a lot better suited to gigabit 
circuits, because you could get 15 or 16 cards in a 4U chassis (much like 
Openreach EADs), but unfortunately Virgin don't offer this anymore.  We've 
suggested they give us a Tr

Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

[Peter Knapp]

Darren.

VM definitely do 10gig uplinks, but only on certain Metnets.

They still go via a 6850 (two SFP+ ports on them, one for VM, one for us/you).

We have them in THN, THE and off Leeds too (after some hassle and an upgrade 
their end)

Hassle them!

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Darren O'Connor
Sent: 12 August 2013 21:05
To: Charlie Boisseau; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased 
line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Virgin have given us (two so far) Alcatel 6850s which have 24 X Gig ports as 
mentioned. We use these for vlan based circuits so one physical port can hold 
10 X100Mb links. We can pack quite  lot of links into 1U

We've asked VM for 10Gb uplinks before and they are still telling us not yet. 
IT would be ideal considering the amount of 1Gb uplinks we have with them.

Darren
www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie


From: char...@fluency.net.uk<mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:38:08 +
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line 
fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]
Sorry to change the subject a bit, but this thread has reminded me of something 
I thought I might ask:

Some of our PoPs are filling up at an alarming rate with Virgin Alcatel demarc 
boxes that only have one or two ports used.  This is mainly because we have a 
number of circuits that are on 1Gig bearers, and the Alcatel boxes only have 
two gigabit ports (one NNI and one UNI), so typically a 1G customer circuit 
will take up 1U of rackspace (nevermind a separate fibre cross connect to the 
Virgin ODF).

Having said that, strangely we just had a new circuit installed into one of our 
PoPs that ended up terminating on a LightningEdge LE-311.  At least that box 
has 4 gig ports - but it's an absolute monster compared to the Alcatel.

The old Pandatel card+chassis based solution was a lot better suited to gigabit 
circuits, because you could get 15 or 16 cards in a 4U chassis (much like 
Openreach EADs), but unfortunately Virgin don't offer this anymore.  We've 
suggested they give us a Transmode box, but I think they only deploy those for 
wavelength services, and wouldn't want to waste them on Ethernet circuits 
(despite the volume of circuits we give them).

 - Does anyone know of any other EDDs Virgin have been known to use that might 
have 10G uplink?
 - Does anyone take L2 services from Virgin on a VLAN based delivery?  I know 
they do this, but I wonder if it's just going to have the same density issues?

Any shared experiences here would be helpful in our 'guided suggestions' to our 
Virgin account manager!

Thanks,

C

--
Charlie Boisseau

Fluency Communications Ltd.
e. char...@fluency.net.uk<mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>
w. http://fluency.net.uk/
t. 0845 874 7000

Fluency Communications Ltd. is part of the 
Commsworld<http://www.commsworld.com/> Group.

This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for 
the sole use of the individual or organisation addressed. If you have received 
this Email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without 
using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other 
person While Fluency has endeavoured to ensure that any attachments do not 
contain viruses it will not be liable for any losses incurred by the recipient. 
Fluency Communications Ltd. Registered in Scotland. Company Number: SC390685. 
Registered Office Address: 45 Peffer Place, Edinburgh, EH16 4BB

On 12 Aug 2013, at 10:12, Chris Russell 
mailto:chris.russ...@knowledgeit.co.uk>> wrote:

Are they giving you a layer3 service? Odd they can't use the SPF port
on the Cisco as that cpe has three gig interface on board.
yes, just a regular business service

They would always use an Alcatel box as the NTU currently, agreed there is some 
level of madness but it's the way they do things I believe for monitoring (?!). 
They moved to Alcatel a few years back and had some fun with learning how to 
commission, this was after 3-4 years of Lightning Edge.

For MIA if they use BGP multihop they often put an ME3[4|6|8]00 switch in the 
way as well as the Alcatel,  for lesser bandwidth's it's Alcatel + generally 
Cisco 2900 ish

Cheers

Chris



website: www.knowledgeit.co.uk<http://www.knowledgeit.co.uk> | blog: 
www.knowledgeit.co.uk/blog<http://www.knowledgeit.co.uk/blog> | twitter: 
@KnowledgeITUK

Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385
Regi

Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

The only shame (from our point of view, for the same reasons as you - Access 
layer only has 2x10gig holes per switch) is that they won't run a 10gig from 
the Alcatel to them, leaving all the 24 ports usable facing us. I haven't 
managed to beat them up with that clue stick enough yet sadly..


Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: Charlie Boisseau [mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk]
Sent: 12 August 2013 19:03
To: Peter Knapp
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased 
line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Peter,

That's really helpful - thanks!

I like the sound of the 6850 and a port-to-port layout - it's similar to the 
way we're used to dealing with Openreach EADs.  The only battle then is to get 
them to run a 24 core fibre patch panel from their ODFs into each of our access 
racks!

VLAN'ing a 10gig port is a good idea, but our access stack is based on Cisco ME 
3600 switches only have two SFP+ ports, so we can't really afford one just for 
a Virgin interconnect.

I'll wave the clue stick at them and see what happens.

Thanks again!

C

--
Charlie Boisseau

Fluency Communications Ltd.
e. char...@fluency.net.uk<mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>
w. http://fluency.net.uk/
t. 0845 874 7000

Fluency Communications Ltd. is part of the 
Commsworld<http://www.commsworld.com/> Group.

This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for 
the sole use of the individual or organisation addressed. If you have received 
this Email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without 
using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other 
person While Fluency has endeavoured to ensure that any attachments do not 
contain viruses it will not be liable for any losses incurred by the recipient. 
Fluency Communications Ltd. Registered in Scotland. Company Number: SC390685. 
Registered Office Address: 45 Peffer Place, Edinburgh, EH16 4BB

On 12 Aug 2013, at 18:51, Peter Knapp 
mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>> wrote:


Charlie.

Hi.

The baby Alcatels are a PITA to put it mildly - when they first started using 
them they would only provision one uplink so we've got loads with no more than 
10 x 100meg ccts on. They do do a side by side shelf so you can get 2 into 1U 
if you weren't aware.

However on a brighter note, point them at 6850s - these are 24 port gig 
affairs, so you get 11 x gig uplinks to them and 11 circuits to you, in a port 
to port configuration (with a mountain of wasted Metnet ports and DC fibre of 
course). They will also vlan on them (as they will on the smaller ones with gig 
ports) so you can "discuss" how much commit on an uplink you are happy with. We 
usually cap at 5-600meg per uplink with 100 on gig type customers and even with 
upgrades in the last couple of years have only had to move a couple to new 
uplinks.

They (VM) will also do 10gig and vlanned, which they still stick via an Alcatel 
and present a single SFP+ port to you. The reason for the Alcatel is at E2E 
testing time (they still insist on it) they put a gig port into the vlan they 
are testing at your core end and perform a full E2e).

We've gradually moved to 10gig handoffs as port to port presentation in TH and 
such is a pain in the butt - although in our own DC use a mix of port and vlan 
handoff.

Hope that helps, and a serious clue stick is needed in their direction IMO..

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk> 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk>] On 
Behalf Of Charlie Boisseau
Sent: 12 August 2013 18:38
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line 
fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Sorry to change the subject a bit, but this thread has reminded me of something 
I thought I might ask:

Some of our PoPs are filling up at an alarming rate with Virgin Alcatel demarc 
boxes that only have one or two ports used.  This is mainly because we have a 
number of circuits that are on 1Gig bearers, and the Alcatel boxes only have 
two gigabit ports (one NNI and one UNI), so typically a 1G customer circuit 
will take up 1U of rackspace (nevermind a separate fibre cross connect to the 
Virgin ODF).

Having said that, strangely we just had a new circuit installed into one of our 
PoPs that ended up terminatin

Re: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

[Peter Knapp]

Charlie.

Hi.

The baby Alcatels are a PITA to put it mildly - when they first started using 
them they would only provision one uplink so we've got loads with no more than 
10 x 100meg ccts on. They do do a side by side shelf so you can get 2 into 1U 
if you weren't aware.

However on a brighter note, point them at 6850s - these are 24 port gig 
affairs, so you get 11 x gig uplinks to them and 11 circuits to you, in a port 
to port configuration (with a mountain of wasted Metnet ports and DC fibre of 
course). They will also vlan on them (as they will on the smaller ones with gig 
ports) so you can "discuss" how much commit on an uplink you are happy with. We 
usually cap at 5-600meg per uplink with 100 on gig type customers and even with 
upgrades in the last couple of years have only had to move a couple to new 
uplinks.

They (VM) will also do 10gig and vlanned, which they still stick via an Alcatel 
and present a single SFP+ port to you. The reason for the Alcatel is at E2E 
testing time (they still insist on it) they put a gig port into the vlan they 
are testing at your core end and perform a full E2e).

We've gradually moved to 10gig handoffs as port to port presentation in TH and 
such is a pain in the butt - although in our own DC use a mix of port and vlan 
handoff.

Hope that helps, and a serious clue stick is needed in their direction IMO..

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Charlie Boisseau
Sent: 12 August 2013 18:38
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Virgin Demarc Boxes [Was: virgin media delivered leased line 
fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.]

Sorry to change the subject a bit, but this thread has reminded me of something 
I thought I might ask:

Some of our PoPs are filling up at an alarming rate with Virgin Alcatel demarc 
boxes that only have one or two ports used.  This is mainly because we have a 
number of circuits that are on 1Gig bearers, and the Alcatel boxes only have 
two gigabit ports (one NNI and one UNI), so typically a 1G customer circuit 
will take up 1U of rackspace (nevermind a separate fibre cross connect to the 
Virgin ODF).

Having said that, strangely we just had a new circuit installed into one of our 
PoPs that ended up terminating on a LightningEdge LE-311.  At least that box 
has 4 gig ports - but it's an absolute monster compared to the Alcatel.

The old Pandatel card+chassis based solution was a lot better suited to gigabit 
circuits, because you could get 15 or 16 cards in a 4U chassis (much like 
Openreach EADs), but unfortunately Virgin don't offer this anymore.  We've 
suggested they give us a Transmode box, but I think they only deploy those for 
wavelength services, and wouldn't want to waste them on Ethernet circuits 
(despite the volume of circuits we give them).

 - Does anyone know of any other EDDs Virgin have been known to use that might 
have 10G uplink?
 - Does anyone take L2 services from Virgin on a VLAN based delivery?  I know 
they do this, but I wonder if it's just going to have the same density issues?

Any shared experiences here would be helpful in our 'guided suggestions' to our 
Virgin account manager!

Thanks,

C

--
Charlie Boisseau

Fluency Communications Ltd.
e. char...@fluency.net.uk<mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>
w. http://fluency.net.uk/
t. 0845 874 7000

Fluency Communications Ltd. is part of the 
Commsworld<http://www.commsworld.com/> Group.

This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for 
the sole use of the individual or organisation addressed. If you have received 
this Email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without 
using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other 
person While Fluency has endeavoured to ensure that any attachments do not 
contain viruses it will not be liable for any losses incurred by the recipient. 
Fluency Communications Ltd. Registered in Scotland. Company Number: SC390685. 
Registered Office Address: 45 Peffer Place, Edinburgh, EH16 4BB

On 12 Aug 2013, at 10:12, Chris Russell 
mailto:chris.russ...@knowledgeit.co.uk>> wrote:


Are they giving you a layer3 service? Odd they can't use the SPF port
on the Cisco as that cpe has three gig interface on board.
yes, just a regular business service

They would always use an Alcatel box as the NTU currently, agreed there is some 
level of madness but it's the way they do things I believe for monitoring (?!). 
They moved to Alcatel a few years back and had some fun with learning how to 
commission, this was after 3-4 years of Lightning Edge.

For MIA if they use BGP multihop they often

Re: [uknof] virgin media delivered leased line fibre service - their CPE and us, and expected speeds.

[Peter Knapp]

As Ben says, the default for NE is fixed speed and duplex.

On MIA unless you've specifically ordered it as fixed, its auto auto on the 
back of the Cisco. 

You need a look at your interface and see if its negotiated at 100 full or 100 
half and give them a bell. 

I've just spoken to them on another matter and they are quiet tonight 
(following yesterdays debacle) and the night boys (Hugh, Jon, Steve etc) are 
spot on and a pleasure to deal with. If you need it locked down it will be done 
in a jiff. 

Don't forget some of the speedtest.net sites are crap by the way, even at my 
desk in the DC we regularly see variable results and upstream is always 
considerably below rated speed. Xilo in Maidenhead are pretty consistent but at 
my desk I still get 95ish down and 70s up. 

Get a multi-threaded ftp client and push a few concurrent jobs to a server to 
get a true indication, or if you have a colo server crack up iperf multi 
threaded for a true indication. 

Your downstream sounds particularly bad unless your choice of site was below 
par, but checking the physical negotiation is your first step for sure. 

Cheers,


Peter Knapp
 
Director

C.C.S. (Leeds) Ltd
Unit A
Seacroft Trade Park
Coal Road
Leeds
LS14 2AQ
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


-Original Message-
From: Ben King 
Sender: 
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 19:11:59 
To: Paul Mansfield
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] virgin media delivered leased line fibre service -
 their CPE and us, and expected speeds.

Hi Paul,

We have a LOT of VM national Ethernet and I can confirm that the norm
is to have to fix each end on 100 Full, not sure on MIA though where
they provide a managed router!

Regards... Ben

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:55, Paul Mansfield  wrote:

> So we've just had a VM 100Mb/s fibre service activated. I was worried
> that with all the talk about them and their contractor Kelly likely to
> be problematic, but it's actually gone fairly smoothly, and apart from
> the ADSL backup not working yet, was actually delivered ahead of
> schedule. The Kelly contractors, a pair who laid the fibre, and a
> subcontractor who did the splicing turned up in the expected time
> frame and did their jobs effectively.
>
> I did a speed test and the performance was a tad disappointing, it
> should be 50M symmetric but the best I could get was 34M down and 14M
> up with a ping time of 7ms, both from a netbook using web browser, and
> android phone using speedtest app.
>
> I wondered whether our side of the Cisco they installed shouldn't be
> on auto-negotiate but instead be fixed at 100M full duplex; this
> initially sped things up but it reverted back.
>
>
> So my questions are:
> * do VirginMedia generally set the customer side of their CPE to fixed
> speed/duplex or leave it on auto?
> * should we expect upload and download speeds with VM to run at the
> maximum contracted speed all the time?
>
>
> thanks very much
> Paul
>

Re: [uknof] BYOR?

[Peter Knapp]

Just as Ed says - except for dedicated suites, we provide the racks. There are 
but three variants, full, half and quarter.

They are all Rittal, they are all cabled the same way. They have individual 
locks.

End of.

You only need to take a look at a TH or similar suite to see what a chuffing 
mess BYOR is..

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

Registered in England, # 350 7910

From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ed Butler
Sent: 01 July 2013 13:56
To: Gavin Henry
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BYOR?

On 1 July 2013 13:35, Gavin Henry 
mailto:ghe...@suretec.co.uk>> wrote:
Hi all,

Do you Bring Your Own Rack or take what a DC provides? What do others
do? I guess it depends on the spec and your requirements?

I hate the concept - no way to make a DC look worse more quickly than having 
assorted racks. If it's a dedicated cage we would consider it, but otherwise 
not a chance.

I suspect many DCs won't allow you for this reason. Also it's a lot more faff 
to have individual customers bringing in their own racks one at a time, rather 
than a contractor doing a job lot.

Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 54, Issue 1

[Peter Knapp]

Hiya.

We use http://storegrid.vembu.com/

Lovely product in the later versions, although they did have some suspect 
clients in early V4 but that seems to be fixed now.

Much as Ed says, it does love disk I/O but I guess this applies to any backup 
client.

Our control servers are nothing special, just single dual core things, backed 
off onto Synology NAS's, with a  few tens of TB of storage, backing up 
everything from Exchange and SBS to CentOS/other linux web servers etc. 

It just seems to work and pricing for the SP versions is very respectable.

Peter Knapp
  
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


 


-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk
Sent: 01 June 2013 12:00
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: uknof Digest, Vol 54, Issue 1

Send uknof mailing list submissions to
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uknof
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
uknof-ow...@lists.uknof.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of uknof digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. IANA AS Numbers registry update (Selina Harrington)
   2. Multi-tenant backup (Simon Green)
   3. Re: Multi-tenant backup (Edward Dore)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:54:10 -0700
From: Selina Harrington 
To: Selina Harrington 
Subject: [uknof] IANA AS Numbers registry update
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of 1 
block to ARIN in 2013-05-30:

62464-63487

You can find the IANA AS Numbers registry at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml

Regards,

Selina Harrington

***
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names & Numbers
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Phone: +1 310 301 5800
Fax: +1-310-823-8649
***
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uknof/attachments/20130530/ac3fb31a/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 20:04:42 +
From: Simon Green 
To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
Subject: [uknof] Multi-tenant backup
Message-ID: <54022570eb923949afe7d299a475051915e8c...@ex01.cit.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Evening list,

I'd be very interested to know what backup software the hosting companies on 
this list are using to offer centralised multi-tenant backup, especially for 
backing up Linux and MySQL.

We currently use Ahsay and have outgrown it so I'm looking for alternative 
options.

Simon
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uknof/attachments/20130531/1f41ad3e/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:25 +0100
From: Edward Dore 
To: Simon Green 
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Multi-tenant backup
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

We use Idera ServerBackup Enterprise (formerly R1Soft Continuous Data 
Protection) and are very happy with it - snapshots, block level backups, 
Windows and Linux support, multi-point replication, MySQL plugin, SQL Server 
support, Exchange support.

It got a bit of a bad reputation for a badly botched re-write with version 3, 
but versions 4 and 5 have both worked well.

Beware, it does love disk I/O on the backup server though!

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet 

On 31 May 2013, at 21:04, Simon Green wrote:

> Evening list,
>  
> I?d be very interested to know what backup software the hosting companies on 
> this list are using to offer centralised multi-tenant backup, especially for 
> backing up Linux and MySQL.
>  
> We currently use Ahsay and have outgrown it so I?m looking for alternative 
> options.
>  
> Simon

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uknof/attachments/20130531/ee2561c3/attachment-0001.html>

--

___
uknof mailing list
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uknof

End of uknof Digest, Vol 54, Issue 1

Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22

[Peter Knapp]

Simon.

I'm saddened to say Alcatel - exactly as you mention. All of above. We did look 
at Huawei too which was better price per port, but in the end leased Alcatel as 
they were far more responsive and Huawei had a reputation for falling over in 
hot places (read tin box at the side of the street).

If we were to do it again, I would be tempted to look at Actellis far more 
seriously..

Peter Knapp
  
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


 


-Original Message-
From: Simon Lockhart [mailto:si...@slimey.org] 
Sent: 25 January 2013 16:22
To: Peter Knapp
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22

On Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 04:04:48PM +0000, Peter Knapp wrote:
> We used to use the Zyxels (both models) in NI a few years ago and 
> spent a lot of time in Bracknell with Zyxel in the test labs - they 
> are (maybe were) more than happy to welcome you on site there. However 
> we had random hardware and lock up problems along with high port 
> failure counts on them and eventually removed them in favour of Alcatel at 
> considerable expense.

Peter,

Thanks for the feedback on Zyxel. How does Alcatel compare price wise to the 
Zyxel? I tend to see the name Alcatel and think $$$, and also expect to pay 
over the odds for support and a management platform to be able to run them - 
but that's just gut feel rather than based on any actual numbers.

Simon

Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22

[Peter Knapp]

Hi.

Just my 2p on this.

We used to use the Zyxels (both models) in NI a few years ago and spent a lot 
of time in Bracknell with Zyxel in the test labs - they are (maybe were) more 
than happy to welcome you on site there. However we had random hardware and 
lock up problems along with high port failure counts on them and eventually 
removed them in favour of Alcatel at considerable expense.

Perhaps they've improved but given they are the same models numbers I would 
presume firmware only if any. Personally I wouldn't look at them again.

Aside from that RAD (TTB) tackle is awful. Had good experience of Actellis but 
it's far from a respectable price point.

Cheers,

Peter Knapp
  
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


 


-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk
Sent: 25 January 2013 16:35
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22

Send uknof mailing list submissions to
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uknof
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
uknof-ow...@lists.uknof.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of uknof digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs (Ben Ward)
   2. Re: EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs (Neil J. McRae)
   3. Re: EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs (Charlie Boisseau)
   4. Re: EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs (Simon Lockhart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:27:06 +
From: Ben Ward 
To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi again all,

Apologies for those who I missed by not going to UKNOF last week. Since the 
baby arrived life has become more small smells than small cells. Anyway, after 
such a great response to my LNS/L2TP questions last time, I thought I'd ask 
people's opinions on DSLAMs.

I'm looking for low-cost, fairly dumb ADSL/EFM DSLAMs, data only, capable of 
user-side VLANs.  Some of the 24-port 1u devices look suitable, but I'd be 
interested in chassis too.

We have a number of Zhone MXK319s already deployed. The early days of deploying 
them were rage-filled with an inconsistent cli, off-by-one bugs and their 
occasionally forgetting how to do switching, but as long as you don't touch 
them them they just sit there.

Any suggestions appreciated.

Thanks
Ben

--
b...@crouchingbadger.com | http://www.crouchingbadger.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uknof/attachments/20130125/024ece49/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:35:34 +
From: "Neil J. McRae" 
To: Ben Ward 
Cc: "uk...@uknof.org.uk" 
Subject: Re: [uknof] EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs
Message-ID: <025e3594-4c0b-49b6-a1c7-0cbf05a30...@domino.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Quite a few people are using zycel I believe - not used them myself.

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:34, "Ben Ward" 
mailto:b...@crouchingbadger.com>> wrote:

Hi again all,

Apologies for those who I missed by not going to UKNOF last week. Since the 
baby arrived life has become more small smells than small cells. Anyway, after 
such a great response to my LNS/L2TP questions last time, I thought I'd ask 
people's opinions on DSLAMs.

I'm looking for low-cost, fairly dumb ADSL/EFM DSLAMs, data only, capable of 
user-side VLANs.  Some of the 24-port 1u devices look suitable, but I'd be 
interested in chassis too.

We have a number of Zhone MXK319s already deployed. The early days of deploying 
them were rage-filled with an inconsistent cli, off-by-one bugs and their 
occasionally forgetting how to do switching, but as long as you don't touch 
them them they just sit there.

Any suggestions appreciated.

Thanks
Ben

--
b...@crouchingbadger.com<mailto:b...@crouchingbadger.com> | 
http://www.crouchingbadger.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uknof/attachments/20130125/e3ba907a/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:38:14 +
From: Charlie Boisseau 
To: Ben Ward 
Cc: "" 
Subject: Re: [uknof] EFM DSLAM recommendations/costs
Message-ID: <

Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15

[Peter Knapp]

Tom.

That is correct, it only supports ASNs to 65k.

This hasn’t changed in the later firmware either.

It hasn’t yet caused us a problem on xDSL termination, and I can’t foresee 
where it would to be fair (we use OSPF for route injection to its adjacencies 
and iBGP for a few bits)

Cheers,

Peter Knapp

T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk<mailto:peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk>
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk<http://www.ccsleeds.co.uk/>

[btn_viewmy_160x25]<http://uk.linkedin.com/in/peteraknapp>


From: Tom Storey [mailto:t...@snnap.net]
Sent: 17 January 2013 17:53
To: Ronan Mullally
Cc: Peter Knapp; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15

I heard something a few years back about the 7300 platform not (and never) 
having 32bit ASN support. Not sure how true or if this has changed. Would love 
clarification though.

On 17 January 2013 13:49, Ronan Mullally mailto:ro...@iol.ie>> 
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Peter Knapp wrote:

> Aside from the rather aging 7204/6 VXR which are of course power hungry
> and large, don't forget to look at the Cisco 7301 (1U) or the 7304 (with
> NPEG-100) which is the replacement for the VXR/G1 routers. The 7304's
> are large (4/5U off the top of my head) but nicely modular and
> considerably less stoneage than 7204/6.
>
> We used to use the 7304/npeg100's but swapped them for 7301's primarily
> due to space.
Did you use the 7304 for L2TP termination?  Last time I looked (5+ years
ago) it didn't support it.


-Ronan


<>

Re: [uknof] uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15

[Peter Knapp]

Hello.

Aside from the rather aging 7204/6 VXR which are of course power hungry and 
large, don't forget to look at the Cisco 7301 (1U) or the 7304 (with NPEG-100) 
which is the replacement for the VXR/G1 routers. The 7304's are large (4/5U off 
the top of my head) but nicely modular and considerably less stoneage than 
7204/6.

We used to use the 7304/npeg100's but swapped them for 7301's primarily due to 
space.

Cheers,

Peter Knapp
  
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


 


-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk
Sent: 17 January 2013 13:01
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: uknof Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15

Send uknof mailing list submissions to
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.uknof.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uknof
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
uknof-ow...@lists.uknof.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of uknof digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Need advice on L2TP/WBMC or other wholesalers
  (Charlie Boisseau)
   2. Re: Need advice on L2TP/WBMC or other wholesalers (Gavin Henry)
   3. Re: Need advice on L2TP/WBMC or other wholesalers
  (Richard Halfpenny)
   4. Re: Need advice on L2TP/WBMC or other wholesalers
  (Richard Halfpenny)
   5. Re: Need advice on L2TP/WBMC or other wholesalers
  (Richard Halfpenny)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:27:07 +
From: Charlie Boisseau 
To: James Bensley 
Cc: "" 
Subject: Re: [uknof] Need advice on L2TP/WBMC or other wholesalers
Message-ID: <5badebb3-9726-468c-9e95-0535abaac...@fluency.net.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

James,

We've had the opposite experience. I've found Enta to be fairly useless. I 
don't know when you set up with them, but several years back when we did, we 
could only have one interconnect, they wouldn't do fail over L2TP tunnel's for 
us, or even two as load balanced.

I have to say I got a lot of people giving me horror stories, so I was 
expecting the worst and ended up pleasantly surprised.  We've been running with 
them for about 6 months, so I can only conclude that they've significantly 
raised their game.  They're happy for us to point the customers at either of 
our LNS's with a simple RADIUS response (much like BT do).

TalkTalkB on the other hand, we have had a great experience with. They have a 
great relationship with BT OpenReach. We can have a BT OpenReach tail installed 
to a customer site, and it will be dumped onto our existing Ethernet 
interconnects with them, no need for separate NNIs.

Yeah, TTB was a close second choice for us (we have an interconnect with them 
for their Ethernet/EFM stuff).  We thought about getting an L2TP interconnect 
to access their nice LLU footprint, however the clincher was that didn't offer 
the IPSC coverage through the same interconnect (and the interconnect fee only 
gives you one).

7204VXR/7206VXR with NPE-G1 are a pretty standard LNS and PPPoA terminator. I 
wouldn't buy one now though as they are EoL unless you can get a two or three 
for a good price. For just starting up, I'd rather grab an MX5, ASR1001.

We did it the old fashioned way because you can get hold of the kit pretty 
cheap, and like I say DSL is low value for us - didn't want to go crazy with 
it.  We'd have to be pushing big volumes to make the capex of a MX5 or ASR1001 
make sense.

Charlie

--
Charlie Boisseau

Fluency Communications Ltd.
e. char...@fluency.net.uk<mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>
w. http://fluency.net.uk/
t. 0845 874 7000

This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for 
the sole use of the individual or organisation addressed. If you have received 
this Email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without 
using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other 
person While Fluency has endeavoured to ensure that any attachments do not 
contain viruses it will not be liable for any losses incurred by the recipient. 
Fluency Communications Ltd. Registered in Scotland. Company Number: SC390685. 
Registered Office Address: 1 Broughton Market, Edinburgh, EH3 6NU

On 17 Jan 2013, at 09:54, James Bensley 
mailto:jwbens...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 16 January 2013 23:02, Charlie Boisseau 
mailto:char...@fluency.net.uk>> wrote:
Guys,
We ended up going with Enta...
I highly recommend Enta. We've had a very good experie