Ranges announced by Level3 without permitions.

Hello All! Maybe somebody could help me with some issue: Ranges below are announced by Level3 79.110.224.0/20*[BGP/170] 08:23:34, MED 0, localpref 150, from 213.248.64.245 AS path: 3356 79.110.64.0/20 *[BGP/170] 08:25:07, MED 0, localpref 150, from 213.248.64.24

Re: TWTelecom DNS issues...

On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Christopher Morrow" > >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Wil Schultz >> wrote: >>> ns1.twtelecom.net and ns2.twtelecom.net (along with some other DNS >>> servers, ns1.orng.twtelecom.net and ns1.ptld.twtelec

Re: TWTelecom DNS issues...

- Original Message - > From: "Christopher Morrow" > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Wil Schultz > wrote: > > ns1.twtelecom.net and ns2.twtelecom.net (along with some other DNS > > servers, ns1.orng.twtelecom.net and ns1.ptld.twtelecom.net) suddenly > > stopped serving DNS for domains it'

Re: TWTelecom DNS issues...

On Mar 3, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Wil Schultz wrote: > Not a huge operational issue, but I'm sure there are some folks that this hit > a little bit. As Chris indicates, it would be a big win if recursion were disabled on the authoritative servers, and instead handled by dedicated caching-only recurs

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message - > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Frank Bulk said: > > Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files > > that create separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, > > voice signaling, and voice bearer t

RE: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

> If the ME3600X is much too expensive, it's possible your expectations > for pricing aren't realistic. > > Selective QinQ is pretty new, and tends to be found only in provider > type equipment. If you can live without that, "normal" (non selective) > QinQ is offered on most switches today. In tha

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

> > > Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and > > selective QinQ. > > > Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes > > the cost > > > per port too high. ... > > The ME3600X might be more a more appropriate Cisco solution than the > > ME6

Re: TWTelecom DNS issues...

On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Wil Schultz wrote: >> ns1.twtelecom.net and ns2.twtelecom.net (along with some other DNS servers, >> ns1.orng.twtelecom.net and ns1.ptld.twtelecom.net) suddenly stopped serving >> DNS for domains it's not a

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

On 02/03/2011 19:19, James Brown wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Rubens Kuhl > wrote: > Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and selective QinQ. > Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes the cost >

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and selective > QinQ. > > Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes the cost > > per port too high. > > Cisco ME6524 has a model with 32 SFP ports (24 with 3:1 > ov

RE: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

I would take a look at a Ciena 3940 and other models. They look to be cost effective for layer 2 deployments. -Original Message- From: Adam Armstrong [mailto:li...@memetic.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:20 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2 Hi

Re: TWTelecom DNS issues...

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Wil Schultz wrote: > ns1.twtelecom.net and ns2.twtelecom.net (along with some other DNS servers, > ns1.orng.twtelecom.net and ns1.ptld.twtelecom.net) suddenly stopped serving > DNS for domains it's not authoritative for this morning. Requests are being > actively

TWTelecom DNS issues...

ns1.twtelecom.net and ns2.twtelecom.net (along with some other DNS servers, ns1.orng.twtelecom.net and ns1.ptld.twtelecom.net) suddenly stopped serving DNS for domains it's not authoritative for this morning. Requests are being actively refused from within their network. Caused a small issue fo

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

On 02/03/2011 18:26, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and selective QinQ. Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes the cost per port too high. Cisco ME6524 has a model with 32 SFP ports (24 with 3:1 oversubscription, 8 non-oversubs

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

> Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and selective QinQ. > Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes the cost > per port too high. Cisco ME6524 has a model with 32 SFP ports (24 with 3:1 oversubscription, 8 non-oversubscribed) and "IP Base" IOS which has

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Frank, I hope not, but the sales guy I knew (he was the one who sold all of the VOIP only CMTSs) is in a different field now. Their architecture was crummy and their reasoning for doing obtuse, but my friend was happy to sell them the gear. On 3/2/2011 11:52 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: Wow,

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

Wow, I was not aware of that, what a management and maintenance nightmare. Do they still do this? Frank -Original Message- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@ispalliance.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:49 AM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP u

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

The service class for the bearer stream, at least on modern configurations with Moto, is "DefVoiceDown" and "DefUGS". The signaling is DefRRDown and DefRRUp. MSOs may create different service classes with unique names, so our (plain vanilla configuration which uses the default names) may not be

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

On 03/01/2011 11:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: It's worked out great for me in a number of places. OTOH, it was kind of dicey even without the torrents from other places. I found that bandwidth and jitter were the bigger issues than other applications I was sharing the link with. I even managed to

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Frank, It gets better (which is sad) in the case of Charter if a customer ordered voice and data they were given a normal Moto SB for Internet data and a separate Arris eMTA (with no CPEs allowed other than the TA and the Ethernet port disabled) for voice. The channels they were using fo

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

Yes, that's how PacketCable works. Here's some CLI output -- nothing like a quick example to make that clear. Here's a customer with 8M/512K Internet service: CMTS:7A#sh cable modem 0008.0ed2.0928 svc-flow-id Service flow id Interface Flow Direction Flow Max Rate 1 cable 0/0

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

On 03/02/2011 06:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: "Michael Thomas" Yes, really. The only difference was which L2 channels the RTP packets were flowed onto, which was determined by the MGCP/SIP signalling and interaction with the telephony gateway. Ther

RE: What vexes VoIP users?

Thanks for clarifying. I can't imagine an MSO using separate DS and US QAMs for their eMTAs. Regardless, the customer's Internet would flow over those same QAMs (unless it was a D3 channel-bonding eMTA, and even then I'm not sure if the CMTS could be provisioned to use one QAM for voice and th

Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!

On 02/03/11 2:55 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: On Wednesday 02 March 2011 03:03:22 JC Dill wrote: I *love* using Bozo filters. Anytime you can trick companies into revealing their true colors, you are a step ahead in the game AKA the Brown M&M gambit. Exactly! Per Wikipedia: http://en.wi

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

On 3/2/2011 10:40 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Frank Bulk said: Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files that create separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, voice signaling, and voice bearer traffic? So the

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

"What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over Internet; where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and through whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the provider. Hmm, I d

Issues with 23.1.64.0/20?

Anyone else see anything / know of any odd behavior on the prefix yesterday afternoon/today? Here in Miami (NAP) we saw some issues through one of our upstreams and ended up disabling the BGP session, then re-enabling it with a filter to block said prefix. We've since removed the filter and t

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Frank Bulk said: > Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files that > create separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, > voice signaling, and voice bearer traffic? So the cable company carves out a protected flow for its

RES: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

We bought Extreme Networks Summit x350 for FTTx purposes. -- Eduardo Schoedler > -Mensagem original- > De: Adam Armstrong [mailto:li...@memetic.org] > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 2 de março de 2011 07:20 > Para: nanog@nanog.org > Assunto: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2 > > Hi All,

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

Frank, No, not all. There seems to be some confusion here between the concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and upstream channels which a few operators use for voice traffic only. On 3/2/2011

RE: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

Rad ETX 1002 and ETX 201A as CPE -Original Message- From: Nick Colton [mailto:ncol...@allophone.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:17 AM To: Adam Armstrong Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2 Adam, Have you looked at the Calix E7 platform or the A

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't get the benefit of prioritization in the local cable plant. "Cost-effective"? Could

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

Adam, Have you looked at the Calix E7 platform or the Adtran TA5000? Both are Layer 2 only. Nick Colton Allo Communications On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Adam Armstrong wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm scouring the Internet for potential devices to use in a FTTB/FTTP > scenario. > > Requirements a

Re: What vexes VoIP users?

- Original Message - > From: "Michael Thomas" > Yes, really. The only difference was which L2 channels the RTP > packets were flowed onto, which was determined by the MGCP/SIP > signalling and interaction with the telephony gateway. There > is a **very** complicated state machine that dea

Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable IPv6 for > you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking them to deal with > the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of the month because they > could n

Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!

On Wednesday 02 March 2011 03:03:22 JC Dill wrote: > > I *love* using Bozo filters. Anytime you can trick companies into > revealing their true colors, you are a step ahead in the game. > > jc > AKA the Brown M&M gambit. -- The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e

Video explaining [RPKI] Resource Certification

Under the NRO flag, we have just released a short video about Resource Certification, giving a high-level explanation of what it is and why it is important for your organisation: http://youtu.be/rH3CPosGNjY I hope to release another video going into more detail, outlining what it means practic

Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

Hi All, I'm scouring the Internet for potential devices to use in a FTTB/FTTP scenario. Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and selective QinQ. Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes the cost per port too high. Has anyone come across anything I'

Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI

This thread makes me sad. adam. On 03/02/2011 19:09, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: "Owen DeLong" On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: This is the crux of the argument I've been trying, rather ineptly, to make: when it breaks, *which way does it fail*. NAT f

Re: Postfix spam

MAAWG best practices - please see http://www.maawg.org for several best practice documents. If your IPs are getting blacklisted - they are emitting spam. Please email me offlist and I'll try to help you with some suggestions On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Rudasingwa wrote: > > I am being

Postfix spam

Hello, I am being attacked by a lot of spams on my postfix box. What is the best way to block them and fix this for good? It is so bad some of my IPs have been black listed. Thanks for your help. -- Best Regards, Peter R. *** *

Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!

On 2011-3-2, at 5:03, JC Dill wrote: > You can use their reply to an IPv6 request as a bit of a bozo filter A senior technical person at my local (consumer) ISP here just told me that their IPv6 plans are "at an early stage" and "lots of work has to be done" before they can start testing. (I ask