On Sep 9, 2015 11:15 PM, "John Levine" wrote:
>
> The placement may be suboptimal, but free wifi away from home is nice.
> CableWifi really is a consortium, T-W customers can use Comcast's
> hotspots and vice versa.
>
Suboptimal is an understatement. How they are placed around Kansas City,
they
In article
you write:
>And they are as annoying as f*&k! and litter the already noisy 5 Ghz
>unlicensed band, Hopefully, the sun will fry them dead over time.
The placement may be suboptimal, but free wifi away from home is nice.
CableWifi really is a consortium, T-W customers can use Comcast's
Usually terribly placed, like a shotgun blast instead of strategic locations.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Lyon"
To: "Phil Bedard"
Cc: "NANOG
And they are as annoying as f*&k! and litter the already noisy 5 Ghz
unlicensed band, Hopefully, the sun will fry them dead over time.
-Mike
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
> There are Comcast people on the list who may have more info, but it’s just
> expansion of their WiFi
There are Comcast people on the list who may have more info, but it’s just
expansion of their WiFi hotspot network and part of the CableWifi consortium.
http://www.cablewifi.com, or you can go to http://wifi.xfinity.com to see
Comcast’s specific deployment.
Cable companies have thousands of
Sorry folks, attachment didn't work. Here is the link -
https://www.uvm.edu/~mvoity/pole.JPG
-Mike
Michael Voity
University of Vermont
On 9/9/15 9:24 PM, Michael T. Voity wrote:
Hello,
Today another colleague and I discovered the famous 'xfinitywifi' ,'CableWIFi',
'CoxWiFi' and a new on
On 9/9/2015 10:23, Alan Buxey wrote:
It's just text at the bottom of your email.
1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was
something like 10x longer than the comment! 2 its pointless. Its not
enforceable and doesn't mean anything.
Shall i put a chapter of war and peac
On 9/9/2015 20:22, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I can not believe (except as, perhaps, an irrefutable sign of my
advancing years) that I did not mention the very personal objection to
the apparently content-free Wile E. Coyote legalese pollution:
The irrefutable fact that in years (and administration
So far what I have learned
1) It causes issues reading bottom up (which I never do, I always go top down
to review the convo) but I can how it bothers others.
2) You don't want lawyers saying "we had a warning, you violated it now we
sue". Understandable.
Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
Hello,
Today another colleague and I discovered the famous 'xfinitywifi' ,'CableWIFi',
'CoxWiFi' and a new one 'XFINITY' on our University campus. After doing some
poking around on campus we found these gems (attached picture) on 2 utility
poles that pass by our east campus.Standing unde
On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
it give you a nervous twitch?
Your disrespectful query is not really worthy of a answer because it is
obviously not asked in good faith, but I am going to try to answer it it
because the
>If your employer insists on attaching a legalistic signature to your
>email which warns the recipient that the message is for their eyes
>only... it's because you are not authorized to make public statements
>as an employee of the company.
No, that's not it. A disclaimer "I don't speak for fooco
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Don Gould wrote:
> Fibre cut then and they couldn't reannounce our ip ranges because of a lack
> of LOA.
Which upstream gave them grief about an LOA during an emergency for a
route they'd been announcing to another service provide and that
overlapped no other route
Thanks William,
Fibre cut then and they couldn't reannounce our ip ranges because of a
lack of LOA.
Learning here... more jobs on the ToDo list.
As for our providers dns, phones, etc... yes.
D
On 10/09/2015 9:43 AM, William Waites wrote:
Near as I can tell, the network that your nameserve
Near as I can tell, the network that your nameservers are in,
68.168.144.0/20 is being correctly announced by AS21560 which is
"Netstream Communications". I see this announcement here. A traceroute
goes as far as,
13 te0-3-1-7.agr22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.47.190) 97.933 ms
te0-3-1-
downforeveryoneorjustme.com says it is down for them too
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:24:56 +1200
Don Gould wrote:
One of my providers seems to be off line currently.
Phones and DNS has vanished too.
Does anyone know anything?
D
Capital Internet http://www.capitalinternet.com/
200 Sandy Springs
looks like their internet is broken, perhaps time for them to turn it
off and on again?
(ripe stat shows it's been down since 1600 UTC 9/9/2015, Sept 9th 2015
for my european friends)
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Don Gould wrote:
> One of my providers seems to be off line currently.
>
> Phone
One of my providers seems to be off line currently.
Phones and DNS has vanished too.
Does anyone know anything?
D
Capital Internet http://www.capitalinternet.com/
200 Sandy Springs Place Northeast
Atlanta, GA 30328
Company phone: +1.404.531.0080
Company fax: +1.404.303.1945
--
Don Gould
31 Ac
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it
give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text
at the bottom of your email.
I can see both sides of this:
1. People who post to this list from a work email
When I send from outlook.com to qkstream.com packets never arrive from
microsofts outbound ip addresses.
Yet I can see the packets fine if I send from outlook.com to tgrand.com
-Original Message-
From: Nate Itkin
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 2:38 PM
To: Todd K Grand
Subject: Re:
On 09/09/15 11:51, Bevan Slattery wrote:
> Yes. Usually Automation/Orchestration and allowing the customer to manage
> their own network requirements in real-time through a portal/iPhone etc?
"But, where does this OpenFlow stuff fit into that?"
Ad infinitum.
--
Tom
another email domain hosted on the same server is tgr...@tgrand.com.
Hotmail/Outlook can send fine to this domain.
-Original Message-
From: Todd K Grand
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 2:19 PM
To: Steve Atkins ; nanog list
Subject: Re: outlook.com outgoing blacklists?
Content-Type:
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns;COL004-OMC2S2.hotmail.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;COL129-W41
Arrival-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 02:13:28 -0700
Final-Recipient: rfc822;supp...@qkstream.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.5.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;554 The mail could not be delivered to
>> Anybody have some recommendations on how I resolve this
>
> The most likely explanation is a configuration error at your end, so the
> first step is to share what the domain is.
That's the 0th Step, actually.
If people are going to ask for help, *PLEASE* provide us enough details to
be able t
Almost seems like something corrupt at Outlook/Hotmail or a blacklist of
some type.
-Original Message-
From: eric-l...@truenet.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 2:00 PM
To: 'nanog list'
Subject: RE: outlook.com outgoing blacklists?
The only example I could come up with is an IDN,
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Anybody have some recommendations on how I resolve this
>
> The most likely explanation is a configuration error at your end, so the
> first step is to share what the domain is.
Todd shared the domain with me privately.
The DNS c
The only example I could come up with is an IDN, which Todd already said
wasn't the case.
At least I know Unicode domains didn't work on Exchange 2013 OWA, but worked
when changed to ASCII.
It may have changed by now though.
Sincerely,
Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300
F: 610-429-3222
On 09/09/15 06:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
> I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
> it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's
> just text at the bottom of your email.
I've seen it in multiple languages (not necessarily on this list).
Furthermore,
Granted that having the CPE request both a IA_NA and IA_PD is a more
common configuration. Some of the CPEs using only DHCPv6 PD can
allocate a /64 out of the delegated /48 for WAN address & management.
The IPV6 traceroute is not broken with the DHCPv6 PD only configuration.
On Wed, Sep 9, 20
>
> Anybody have some recommendations on how I resolve this
The most likely explanation is a configuration error at your end, so the first
step is to share what the domain is.
Cheers,
Steve
DNS has been confirmed to be valid.
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 1:22 PM
To: Todd K Grand
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: outlook.com outgoing blacklists?
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:49:30 -0500, "Todd K Grand" said:
This happens wit
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:49:30 -0500, "Todd K Grand" said:
> This happens without ever sending a packet to our servers.
> The affected domain can send emails to hotmail/outlook accounts just fine.
Step 0: Verify that the DNS has the appropriate MX, A, and other records
for the failing domain.
pg
I have an email server which hosts 3 domains.
I have reason to believe that microsoft maintains an outgoing blacklist and
would like confirmation on this.
I have had many a report that people on domains hosted on hotmail/outlook are
getting messages bounced back stating that our server was unrea
Maybe someone having some experiences with Cisco ASR9K and ERP (G.8032)?
I have configured a pair of two ASR9K for a customer. The other side is a
pair of Huawei Switch. The Ring seems to work fine. We have simulated link
fault and protection switch occurred but on traffic test we were not abl
Dear List,
If someone reads my email from Verizon/AS701, we are looking for an
internal contact in order to check opportunities/facilities regarding
transit/PNI.
Thanks in advance for any help ;)
Regards,
--
-
Fabien VINCENT
Dear List,
If someone reads my email from Verizon/AS701, we are looking for an
internal contact in order to check opportunities/facilities regarding
transit/PNI.
Thanks in advance for any help ;)
Regards,
Fabien VINCENT
Agreed.
Everyone at the office have been flying some. :)
//Gustav
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+gustav.ulander=telecomputing...@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Knipe
Sent: den 8 september 2015 16:50
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: internet visualization
Indeed!
One of
On 8/09/2015 7:14 am, "Nick Hilliard" wrote:
>On 07/09/2015 21:23, James Downs wrote:
>> What do you mean when you say ³software defined networking²? Do you have
>> a particular problem or use case you are approaching?
>
>since when was that a requirement for SDN?
>
>Nick
Yes. Usually Automati
> On 09/09/2015 06:36 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
>> I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
>> it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's
>> just text at the bottom of your email.
Here's the thing...
If your employer insists on attaching a legalist
In my case, I resent the idea that some lawyer somewhere thought I could
somehow be bound to an agreement I never agreed to which does not appear to me
until I have reached the end of an email on which he/she feels I should be
bound.
It’s an absurd construct. It’s a waste of bits that could be
The ACLs/Security policy can actually be fairly generic or automated, so I
don’t see that as an issue.
The DHCP forwarder configuration is usually global, so the helper address
statement demonstrates your lack of IPv6 understanding.
The /64 is pretty much nothing, but yeah, so what?
Owen
> On
Because the designers of IPv6 didn’t want to bake the hardware constraints of
equipment available
10+ years ago (20?) into the addressing plan for the future.
Hanging 4k customers off a switch is a current hardware limitation which has
almost nothing to do with
IPv6 other than not being possible
It's not just the tag though... You have the /64 that has to be provisioned,
the helper addresses for DHCP, ACLs/security policy, etc.
Thanks,
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> VLAN tags aren’t global and 4096 is o
Sure, but this is a useless savings that comes at the cost of awkward
traceroute output
that will initially confuse your new employees and consistently confuse your
customers.
Owen
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:46 , Clinton Work wrote:
>
> If you use separate VLANs for each customer then the CPE ro
VLAN tags aren’t global and 4096 is only a limitation on ethernet.
VPI/VCI is many more.
Yes, if you need more than 4096 customers on a single switch, you’ve got an
issue, but there are many potential issues in that scenario beyond VLAN tagging
(like customers choosing not to use routers and fi
On 09/09/2015 06:36 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's
just text at the bottom of your email.
It's all about best practices.
In an e-mail thread, where the thread grows wi
I love cat videos.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Dovid Bender wrote:
> > I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt
> > anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a
> > mystery.
> >
>
> No mystery ... It wastes bits that c
Dovid Bender wrote:
> I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt
> anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a
> mystery.
>
No mystery ... It wastes bits that could otherwise be used to watch cat videos.
;)
Tony
I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt
anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a mystery.
Regards,
Dovid
-Original Message-
From: Alan Buxey
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:23:01
To: ; Larry Sheldon;
NANOG;
Subject: Re: Extraneous
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:36:39 -, "Dovid Bender" said:
> I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give
> you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the
> bottom of your email.
Disclaimers like those are like brown M&M's backstage at a Van
A bit of salt on that will help...
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Crow for lunch today.
>
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Larry Sheldon
> wrote:
>
> > On 9/8/2015 21:05, Joly MacFie wrote:
> >
> >> 3/10 for spelling
> >>
> >> adjancencies
> >>>
> >>
> >> or is that a
In article
<1515735780-1441805800-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1712088326-@b13.c3.bise6.blackberry>
you write:
>I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give
>you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal?
>It's just text at the bottom of your emai
>It's just text at the bottom of your email.
1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was something
like 10x longer than the comment!
2 its pointless. Its not enforceable and doesn't mean anything.
Shall i put a chapter of war and peace at the end of my emails? You cou
Crow for lunch today.
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 9/8/2015 21:05, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>> 3/10 for spelling
>>
>> adjancencies
>>>
>>
>> or is that a thing?
>>
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjacencies
>
>
> --
> sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you
a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the bottom
of your email.
Regards,
Dovid
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon
Sender: "NANOG" Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30
To:
Subje
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/Sep/15 22:41, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>
> Oh, it doesn't *need* that many. You can go ahead and run your IPv6
subnets
> with a /96 or /112. Just remember that will piss off any hardware that
tries
> to do SLAAC. or a few other thin
On 8/Sep/15 21:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> If the ISPs equipment supports IPv6 on shared VLANs with DHCP snooping and
> other security, you can implement it with a single /64 giving each router a
> unique address within that segment, but it’s not really ideal. This was
> mainly done in IPv4 to
On 8/Sep/15 21:04, Josh Moore wrote:
> I'm reading that the recommended method for assigning IPv6 addresses to
> end-users is to do this via a dedicated VLAN and /64. Some broadband access
> methods utilize a shared VLAN model with additional security mechanisms in
> place such as DHCP snoopi
Please reply off list to me or Job, is this a useful tool that should be
updated with data weekly or monthly?
Jared Mauch
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
>
> Weirdest thing I've found yet - AS7224, Amazon AS - Amazon, has 1
> indegree - AS724 - DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Net
59 matches
Mail list logo
