Re: Rack Locks

Hi Kevin, Well I¹m happy to provide my experience. When I decided to build a new data centre business back in 2010, I started with a simple premise. That the core data centre experience must be controlled by browser and phone. That system was (and still is called) ONEDC. A key component of this

Re: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak

Your searching is apparently much better than mine. I checked when at NANOG last month and didn't see anything, but there it is... So then I wonder... when I've had bankrupt clients before, I wasn't allowed to disconnect service until the court was all said and done. I doubt it's done this qu

Re: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak

Last time I was in their cage, I saw an R&E network and a cable company in their cage, so I bet there are quite a few hot people right about now. :-\ - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - O

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:35:55PM -0800, Jim Burwell wrote: > My questions are: > > 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for > managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this > outside of its function? (I suspect the latter) It's considered out

Xeex & 350 E. Cermak

Has anyone else that had services from Xeex Communications have a disruption recently? Our stuff went down shortly after 5:00 this afternoon. I get to Equinix and our cross connects through them are gone. I had suspected some trouble over there and it appears that I unfortunately was correct.

Re: Rack Locks

On Nov 20, 2015, at 20:55, Jimmy Hess wrote: > You're not going to be able to look at a log and see Joe opened it at 2:45AM > 12 months ago, and ever since then, the servers are not quite right. And I would have got away with it to, if it wasn't for you kids and your pesky logs. Joe

Re: Rack Locks

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Kevin Burke wrote: > What kind of experience do people have with rack access control systems > (electronic locks)? Anything I should pay attention to with the Overpriced, overkill for most real-world uses? High-Tech technology for technology's sake? Avoid them i

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Have a simple couple of questions here. >>> >>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any >>> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Have a simple couple of questions here. >> >> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any >> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of >>

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote: > > Hi, > > Have a simple couple of questions here. > > In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any > reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of > prefixes it delegates. Perhaps I missed it,

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Requiring streaming companies not to use UDP is pretty absurd. Surely they must be able to identify streaming traffic without needing TCP. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Owen DeLong Sent: ‎11/‎20/‎2015 4:32 PM To: Steve Mikulasik

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since UDP is stateless. Owen > On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik wrote: > > That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who > wrote this understands what UDP is. > > "Use of technology

DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

Hi, Have a simple couple of questions here. In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of prefixes it delegates. Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the omission of this responsibility would b

Rack Locks

What kind of experience do people have with rack access control systems (electronic locks)? Anything I should pay attention to with the products? Hope this questions hasn't already been answered. Not to picky about what/who. The APC solution seems to start getting pricy with multiple racks. I

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge O

RE: Comcast eastern Washington storm update?

We had hundreds of users in WA with Comcast having many issues yesterday. Comcast never would acknowledge it was an issue. It finally just cleared up. Their VOIP phones were not working, all website were really slow and generating PCBD errors. Not sure if this helps but thought I would mention i

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Unlimited data plan is $30/mo. Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and data rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion, oversubscription, etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a year now. The

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Once upon a time, Blake Hudson said: > Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little > additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have > preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger > monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see > f

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I think one i

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing. Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty reasonable. Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. In fact, it looks to me like the bare minimum of reason

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 07:07 , t...@pelican.org wrote: > > On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch" > said: > >> Did someone say NAT? >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8 > > Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon! You, sir, win the Internet for > today. > > Reg

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against > the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I > missing? Cross-subsidy. It's a standard tool of monopoly abuse. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Wi

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

It leaves more data available to use within your data plan, but may reduce bandwidth available to you to actually use. In other words, you may find your billed usage unusable due to lack of usable bandwidth. 'Oh it's free, I will set my phone to stream all Monty Python movies continuously.'

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I missing? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: > It's not. And that's the point. > > This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth o

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

This is just the start. Providers will push the limits slowly and will eventually get to where they want to be. t-mob is doing this in such a way that consumer's will not object. When the general public doesn't object (because they are getting "free" data) that makes it a lot easier for the FCC

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

It's not. And that's the point. This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

- Original Message - > From: "Scott Brim" > What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and > is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content > cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I > also think I remember that there is

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches st

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is. "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nano

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

(CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION - just a swag) isn't this just moving content to v6 and/or behind the great-nat-of-tmo? 'reduce our need for NAT infra and incent customers to stop using NAT requiring services' ? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: > T-Mobile claims they are not accep

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

I believe there may be a catch though: I don't think they can pick and choose which streaming providers they allow their customers to stream for free. As long as their streaming program is a "catch-all" for streaming video, they can claim they are doing what they can (within reason) to exempt strea

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: According to: http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/ Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On. "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality prob

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > According to: > > > http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/ > > Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media > stream data, but only from the people we like" ser

Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

According to: http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/ Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition. My take on this is that t

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch" said: > Did someone say NAT? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8 Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon! You, sir, win the Internet for today. Regards, Tim.

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

Did someone say NAT? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8 - Jared > On Nov 19, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Baker, Byrn wrote: > > Don't get on Kens bad side. > > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Matlock > Sent: Thursday, November 19

RE: bad announcement taxonomy

Don't get on Kens bad side. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Matlock Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:44 PM To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: bad announcement taxonomy Origin NAT? ;)

Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall

On 15/Nov/15 06:02, Yury Shefer wrote: > My team mate was traveling to China with his Nexus 6 (with Project Fi > SIM-card) and was able to access Google services. The phone uses roaming > data to access Google and your phone gets IP assigned by your home mobile > network packet gateway (P-GW). T

Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall

On 15/Nov/15 05:08, Jared Geiger wrote: > When you roam onto another cellular network other than your home network, > your data is encapsulated and sent back to your home network before going > out to the internet. This is to provide a seamless experience for the > customer. I always felt it wa