Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

Blanket reply.. :) So at what point does unlimited mean unlimited? Roaming agreements have always been two sided. In my case.. I roam on to AT&T's network, the same as AT&T folk roam into tmo when they do not have coverage. At the end of the month the two are reconciled and someone gets paid. I

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: Depends on your carrier. From AT&T, I have $29 unlimited and I have definitely cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some months than through my $100+ cable connection. From VZW, I'm paying $100+/month and only getting 10GB over LTE, but

RE: blogs.cisco.com not available via IPv6

My Cisco IPv6 contacts confirmed that they were made aware of this 12 hours ago and it's being worked on. Frank -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:23 AM To: Henri Wahl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: blogs.cisco.com not av

RE: Anyone competent within AT&T Uverse?

Phil if you can send me your full name, address, billing telephone number, contact number, U-Verse BAN if you know it, and what is wrong and for how long, I can escalate this to get immediate attention. Steve -Original Message- From: Phil Karn [mailto:k...@philkarn.net] Sent: Tuesday,

Comcast DNS Issue?

Good Afternoon, If there is a Comcast DNS Engineer on the list could you contact me off-list? We are experiencing an odd issue with 75.75.75.75. Thanks, Aaron [Description: Description: Description: logo-email] Aaron Childs, CCNA Associate Director, Networking Information Technology www.west

RE: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

For example, the regional wireless carrier my $DAYJOB has partnered with has rate-limiting in place with its two major roaming partners, to help control roaming costs. And when it uses the word "unlimited" in its marketing materials it means you can access data anywhere where there is access, not

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

Ting is an MVNO (just like my company 2600hz) and while it would violate the terms of my NDA to confirm the 10x number I can say that we found it to be prohibitively expensive. One should be aware that, just like in the IP transit world, the small players have different rules than the big kids.

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

--- ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: From: Jared Mauch In "outlying" areas, such as Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, you're better off using a local telco. More likely to have better coverage. Not in Hawaii. Hawaiian Telcom used to (still do?) use Sprint's cell n

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Dec 4, 2013, at 13:43 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular >> providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that the >> rest of the math behind the scenes must wor

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 22:18:12PM +, Joshua Goldbard wrote: > ... When you send your data > over a partners network it raises your wireless company's cost of > delivering service, in some cases so much so that you become > unprofitable. Some folks over at Ting(.com) suggest that the cost for

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

Traveling, I usually see better data performance natively on a network vs roaming. In "outlying" areas, such as Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, you're better off using a local telco. More likely to have better coverage. - Jared On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Jack Vizelter wrote: > In my experience, nat

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

Since we're on the subject of T-Mobile USA, who was kind enough to send me a notification via SMS that my 10 megabytes of roaming data allotment was all used up yesterday while driving a long stretch of I-77 between somewhere in mid-Ohio all the way to somewhere about Wytheville, VA, I'm pretty

RE: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

In my experience, nationwide, typically just means the continental 48 states, for the most part. From: Jay Ashworth [j...@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:20 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

> Have any of you experienced or been subjected to a "domestic data > roaming policy"? I am a customer of a carrier who advertises > "Unlimited Nationwide 4G data", but limits their customers to 50MB per > month while traveling in an area they do not have coverage (Alaska, > for example). I've neve

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

TL;DR: peering is not free in wireless. Hi, So as you may or may not be aware, most operators do not, in fact have nationwide networks, just as you, as I assume you're an operator, do not run last mile connectivity to all your customers (or every intervening interconnect for that matter). The

Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..

All, I realize this is not exactly relevant to the usual topics on NANOG, but I thought this list was a decent place to ask a question related to cellular data usage limits. Have any of you experienced or been subjected to a "domestic data roaming policy"? I am a customer of a carrier who adve

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

In message , Lee Howard writes: > > > On 12/3/13 7:14 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > > > > >In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes: > >> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who > >>wants them and we do

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that the rest of the math behind the scenes must work somehow. Cost != price. Also, wireless providers are not delive

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson >> wrote: >> > Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K >> > from >> >> where does the 1M come

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On 12/4/13, 12:58 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson >> wrote: >>> Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from >> >> where does the 1M come from? >> > > FIB table

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson > wrote: > > Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from > > where does the 1M come from? > FIB table sizes, usually dictated by TCAM size. Think deployed hardw

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:35 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is >> rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels. > > Have you seen the cost of an LTE ba

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:43 , Brian Dickson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson > wrote: > > Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is > to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from where does the 1M come from?

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson > wrote: > > Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is > to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect probably the POP > and the Border device levels most likely, so

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels. Have you seen the cost of an LTE base station including install and monthly fees? If you did, you wou

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > IF deployed by operators correctly, the global routing table should be 1 > IPv6 route per ASN. > However, that is only feasible if each ASN can efficiently aggregate > forever (or 50 years at least). and if your capacity between 2 asn endpoin

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson wrote: > Rob Seastrom wrote: > >> "Ricky Beam" > gmail.com> >> writes: >>> >> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom > > wrote: *>> >> * So the

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > Brian Dickson wrote: > > > And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence > > > that every network (LAN) must be a /64. > [snip] > about how many bits to add for hosts on the lan. The fact it came out to 64 > > The point I'

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 , Nikolay Shopik wrote: > On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote: >> In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes: >>> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote: I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them and we

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for > consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do > still exist, right? that's still a transit as, right? I think your math means that there

RE: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Brian Dickson wrote: > > And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence > > that every network (LAN) must be a /64. Get your history straight. The /64 was an outcome of operators deciding there was not enough room for hierarchy in the original proposal for the IPv6 address as

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do still exist, right? Brian On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > > >

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Brian Dickson writes: > > > Rob Seastrom wrote: > > > >> "Ricky Beam" http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> > >> writes: > >> > > >> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom >>

Re: Cisco ScanSafe, aka Cisco Cloud Web Security

First of all, why are you allowing or disallowing split tunnel networks ? There is always the risk that he/she may get infected with some malware that your antivirus does not recognize and it spreads through the internet network when the user VPNs to the corporate network. From what I've seen,

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Brian Dickson writes: > >> Rob Seastrom wrote: >> >>> "Ricky Beam" >> gmail.com> >>> writes: >>> > >>> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom >>

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes: >> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants >>> them and we don't charge for IPv6 add >> ress space. >> >> There is so

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Brian Dickson writes: > Rob Seastrom wrote: > >> "Ricky Beam" > gmail.com> >> writes: >> > >> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom > > wrote: *>> >> * So there really is no excuse on A

Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Rob Seastrom wrote: > "Ricky Beam" gmail.com> > writes: > > > * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom > wrote: *>> > * So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse >

Re: Anyone competent within AT&T Uverse?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, John Kreno wrote: > One wonders if this is an industry trend. > > Outsourcing the outsourcers to other outsourcers... and at the end of the day everyone is congratulating everyone that the SLAs have been met :))

Re: Anyone competent within AT&T Uverse?

One wonders if this is an industry trend. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Thomas wrote: > You need to talk to Alcatel Tac team. They will be able to help you. > Prem tech don't have the knowledge or resources. Tier one is useless and > can only do basic diagnostics., tier two won't be able

Re: Cisco ScanSafe, aka Cisco Cloud Web Security

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Herro91 wrote: > Hi, > > I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also > known as ScanSafe. > > Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now called > Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing protection in t

Re: bgp traceroute tool?

On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 01:19:14 +0100, Rene Wilhelm said: (Getting caught up after a few weeks elsewhere) > Reporting in the same format as the IRR, riswhois is plugin > compatible with whois.radb.net. If your linux traceroutederives > from http://traceroute.sourceforge.net/ all it takes to switch t

Cisco ScanSafe, aka Cisco Cloud Web Security

Hi, I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also known as ScanSafe. Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now called Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing protection in the cloud that would potentially negate the requirement to hav

Re: blogs.cisco.com not available via IPv6

I'm seeing it down via IPv6: * Trying 2600:1407:9:295::90... * Connected to www.cisco.com (2600:1407:9:295::90) port 80 (#0) > GET / HTTP/1.1 > User-Agent: curl/7.30.0 > Host: www.cisco.com > Accept: */* > < HTTP/1.1 200 OK * Server Apache is not blacklisted * About to connect() to blogs.cisc

blogs.cisco.com not available via IPv6

Hi, can anybody from Cisco confirm that blogs.cisco.com (2001:4800:13c1:10::178) is not available via IPv6? Regards -- Henri Wahl IT Department Leibniz-Institut fuer Festkoerper- u. Werkstoffforschung Dresden tel: (03 51) 46 59 - 797 email: h.w...@ifw-dresden.de http://www.ifw-dresden.de Nagio

Re: Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network, and their NOC@ won't even respond

For anyone's following the story: the weeks-long congestion on he.net remains, however, hetzner has switched my original route to an alternative uplink. I'm no longer experiencing the he.net evening jitter that would bring my avg rtt from the non-congested 114ms to an average of 140ms and more