To be honest, if your DR environment has been offline for 3 months and you are just now opening a case, I would not consider that critical.ShaneOn Mar 11, 2024, at 10:08 AM, michael brooks - ESC wrote:>It may be a pain in the butt to get Cisco equipment, but their TAC is sublime. If something
Interesting, this has never been my experience even with Cisco or Juniper, have
always been able to escalate quickly to engineering. I wonder if it was related
to the size of my accounts.
Shane
> On Mar 6, 2024, at 1:27 PM, Pascal Masha wrote:
>
> Thought about it but so far I believe
Based on the ASName of both AS, including CELLCO which is the actual name of
the corporate entity known as Verizon Wireless, I would agree that both are in
fact Verizon Wireless. The contacts are just corporate standard entities.
Shane
> On Feb 19, 2024, at 9:01 PM, Richard Laager wrote:
>
>
No, Verizon Wireless has their own AS # and doesn’t actually use Verizon Business as their primary provider.ShaneOn Feb 19, 2024, at 2:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:But then MCI is the one running fiber to all of the Verizon Wireless sites, so that doesn't help in de-muddying the waters.-Mike
Verizon Business is the fixed line business focused entity, formerly MCI and UUNET. Verizon Wireless is the wireless business entity.ShaneOn Feb 19, 2024, at 2:44 PM, Justin Krejci wrote:
For me it is some AS 6167 destinations.
WHOIS for that ASN says this is Verizon Business.
AS Number:
Why is your Internal v6 subnet advertised to the Internet?
> On Feb 16, 2024, at 8:08 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 3:13 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>> If you know which subnets need to be NAT'd don't you also know which
>> ones shouldn't exposed to incoming connections
I am curious if anyone has ever given you positive feedback on this idea? So far all I’ve seen is the entire community thinking it’s a bad idea. Why do you insist this is a good solution?ShaneOn Jan 20, 2024, at 11:56 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Christopher:
1) "
Good thing there are no windows at this “hypothetical” location :)
> On Jan 16, 2024, at 1:51 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> Something worth a thought is that as much as devices don't like being
> too hot they also don't like to have their temperature change too
> quickly. Parts can
everyone else on NANOG.ShaneOn Jan 15, 2024, at 6:46 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Sronan:
1) “Radio Access
Network”:
Thanks for bringing
this up. Being an RF engineer by training, I am aware of this
terminology
Please don’t use the term RAN, this acronym already has a very specific definition in the telecom/network space as “Radio Access Network.”ShaneOn Jan 15, 2024, at 5:12 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Hi, Forrest:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1):
The initial
Exactly. Perhaps they weren’t all online to begin with…On Jan 15, 2024, at 10:18 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:and none in the other two facilities you operate in that same building had any failures.-Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet ExchangeThe Brothers WISPFrom:
I’m more interested in how you lose six chillers all at once.ShaneOn Jan 15, 2024, at 9:11 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:Let's say that hypothetically, a datacenter you're in had a cooling failure and escalated to an average of 120 degrees before mitigations started having an effect. What are normal QA
Or has no engineer capable of configuring it, or support staff trained to
handle the issues that will come up.
There are many reasons why providers don’t support v6.
> On Dec 1, 2023, at 11:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:45 PM Shane Ronan wrote:
>> Unfortunately
Again, these rules typically only relevant when you are taking government funding or the government is looking to allocate future funding. Providers who don’t take government funding are welcome to run their networks as they choose.ShaneOn Dec 1, 2023, at 7:35 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:Trying to
That’s because symmetrical latency like you see on a satellite connection isn’t an issue at all for audio, it’s the variation or jitter that may cause issues.ShaneOn Sep 21, 2023, at 5:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:Artifacts in audio are a product of packet loss or jitter resulting in codec issues
It’s SUPER common for all of the carriers on a cell site to share the same common backhaul path. And I can tell you from personal hands-on experience the majority (90+%) of cell sites in the US have simplex connectivity.On Aug 17, 2023, at 2:00 PM, TJ Trout wrote:I'm familiar with the island,
Throw PTP in the mix for the greater accuracy required for some wireless (5G) configurations, and the situation becomes even more complicated.On Aug 14, 2023, at 6:55 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:We're going to have to somewhat disagree here...I may not have been 100% clear about
Or the investment to upgrade doesn’t make financial sense.
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:54 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 6/20/23 15:20, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>>
>> When you go down in density, your fixed cost per customer really escalates
>> and you simply
You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will.On Jun 17, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:You’re assuming the launches are costing
You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in fact may not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads which pay for the launches, particularly government contracts.On Jun 17, 2023, at 5:54 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that
Very different, collecting it would mean contacting EVERY customer to collect
the data and then validating it all to ensure the customer was telling the
truth, down to the individual phone number level. Imagine if to validate
routes, you weren’t able to look at /24’s and higher but down to the
The FCC hasn’t enforced it because the burden on large carriers to collect that
data would be insane. And it would be reduce the flexibility of large carriers
to take on new traffic in disaster situations, which is one of the strongest
points of the PSTN. It’s not like the carriers have the
I don’t think they are…
> On Oct 4, 2022, at 6:54 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> On 10/4/22 3:08 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
>> I'm talking about PSTN hops, which like I previously said still accounts for
>> a VERY significant amount of calls.
>>
>>
> But what percentage of the spam calls? I
I suppose but that also means they need to go back and figure out which
prefixes to allow, since historically hasn’t been tracked.
Also, how does the man in the middle since most calls don’t go from originating
carrier to terminating carrier, know if the originator did their job?
> On Oct 4,
Inter-telco trunks aren’t all SIP, you might be surprised how much
“traditional” trunking there still is.
> On Oct 4, 2022, at 3:18 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On 10/4/22 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>>> Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded
>>>
Except the pstn DB isn’t distributed like DNS is.
> On Oct 4, 2022, at 2:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On 10/4/22 11:21 AM, Shane Ronan wrote:
>> Except the cost to do the data dips to determine the authorization isn't
>> "free".
> Since every http request in the universe
How do you propose to fairly distribute market data feeds to the market if not
multicast?
Shane
> On Aug 9, 2022, at 10:19 PM, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Matthew Huff wrote:
>
>> Also, for data center traffic, especially real-time market data and
>> other UDP multicast traffic,
You keep using the term “imaginary” when presented with evidence that does not
match your view of things.
There are many REAL scenarios where single flow high throughout TCP is a real
requirements as well as high throughput extremely small packet size. In the
case of the later, the market is
You are incredibly incorrect, in fact the market for those devices is in the
Billions of Dollars. But you continue to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Shane
> On Aug 7, 2022, at 11:57 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 at 17:58, wrote:
>
>> There are MANY real world use cases which
There are MANY real world use cases which require high throughput at 64 byte
packet size. Denying those use cases because they don’t fit your world view is
short sighted. The word of networking is not all I-Mix.
> On Aug 7, 2022, at 7:16 AM, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Saku Ytti wrote:
>
I’m unsure how you came up with this calculation, but I can promise you it’s
not correct.
Shane
> On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:38 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:11:07 -0400, William Allen Simpson
> wrote:
>
>
>> At our residence, the US mailbox is positioned near the
Baido is NOT a customer of Verizon. They are a customer of China Telecom who
has a peering relationship with Verizon.
> On Jul 21, 2022, at 1:41 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:44 AM holow29 wrote:
>> I would expect Verizon to be able to contact CT
I’m “guessing” based on all the services that were impacted the outage was
likely cause by a change that caused a routing change in their multi-service
network which overloaded many network devices, and by isolating the source the
routes or traffic the rest of the network was able to recover.
They had 5 years to do that, and didn’t start until the very last minute.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:41 PM, Doug Royer wrote:
>
>
> On 6/5/22 17:14, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>> They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.
>>
>> Shane
>>
They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.
Shane
> On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:05 PM, Doug Royer wrote:
>
>
>> On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> John Levine wrote:
>>> It appears that Crist Clark said:
ProPublica published an investigative report
Sounds like you’ve never lived in an HOA.
> On Feb 19, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>
> "A single customer who has no sway over an entire HOA"
>
> If you can't sway the whole HOA, then the problem must not be that bad.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing
As I posted earlier, it’s supposed to be 19-72A1.
Shane
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
>> I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that
>> states-
>> The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that
I believe that should be 19-72A1.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf
Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August
2nd, 2022.
Shane
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 9:27 PM, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
>
> I found an alarmist email from a
Usage of 1.1.1.1 has been widespread amongst wireless controllers for a very
long time, as an address for their captive portals.
Shane
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Mike Lewinski via NANOG wrote:
>
> On a related note, I just discovered a NID that has 1.1.1.1 assigned to the
> outband
It’s the frequency and the knowledge to configure the software and equipment
that is still prohibitively expensive in many cases.
And frankly, if you are only providing fixed access to 500 users, I’m not sure
even the AWS solution is necessary. Because if you can configure the transport
and
Considering Verizon has a very sizable fleet of private aircraft, I am fairly
certain this will happen often.
Shane
> On Jan 19, 2022, at 4:59 PM, nano...@mulligan.org wrote:
>
> Scott - a side note to clarify things...
>
> The 737 Max8 problem was NOT due to lack of testing or
The thing is aviation DOESN’T own this spectrum, they just assumed it would
always be unused. And they failed to mention it would be a problem during the
last 5 years of discussion regarding the use of this spectrum.
Shane
> On Jan 18, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
>
> Michael,
>
This may have been asked and answered, but I couldn’t find the answer.
What are people recommending these days for IP tracking systems? I’m looking
for something to track the used/available IP addresses in my new lab.
Thanks in advance.
Shane
My understanding is those systems require very little bandwidth, so barring a
full “jam” of the full spectrum, it can still operate.
This is not the same use case as most private 5G implementations.
Shame
> On Nov 30, 2021, at 6:05 PM, James Jun wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:48:28PM
It certainly sounds like you’ve never operated a network at scale if you think
knowing the IP address of something reduces Operational expense. The only way
to truly reduce Opex at scale is automation.
Shane
> On Nov 28, 2021, at 9:13 AM, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>>>
It gives them the right to enter the building, but the building can charge “a
reasonable fee” for things like power/space/cooling.
Shane Ronan
> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:45 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
> wrote:
>
> Fiber in a building adds 8% to the value of that building.
Regulatory enforcement by whom? Last I knew there wasn’t a world wide Internet
regulatory body.
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 2:33 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 19:22, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>> So where does that put us in a decade or two? Which protocol is
>> optional?
>
> If we
Coming from another one of their customers?
Shane Ronan
> On Jun 9, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>
> I first asked on a list much more narrow in scope, but failing to get
> sufficient data points, I've expanded my scope.
>
>
>
> Assuming the number isn't held by someone exempt
So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
> Sronan -
>
> I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as
> this will avoid propagating exist
Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they predate
ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD has never and will never sign any sort of
ARIN agreement.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> ARIN rules require every IP space
A quick search shows the OP made 10 similar posts in just the month of March,
which is what prompted by complaint.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 18, 2021, at 12:43 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 3/18/21 18:11, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes and no. "Would you help me identify who
A very different and more appropriate list for the OP’s posts than NANOG.
I have nothing to prove other than improving the quality of posts to the
mailing list.
> On Mar 18, 2021, at 12:06 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>
> I see we've got the big swingers out today. Everyone's got something to
Please review the Mailing List policies which specifically prohibit commercial
discussions on the list. I would ask the list moderators to chime in here please
Shane
> On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:14 AM, Rod Beck
> wrote:
>
>
> People post requests all the time. You are free to block me. And I
Let me tell you about my personal favorite.
It’s 2002 and I am working as an engineer for an electronic stock trading
platform (ECN), this platform happened to be the biggest platform for trading
stocks electronically, on some days bigger than NASDAQ itself. This platform
also happened to be
Aurora MySQL can absolutely be replicated with on-prem SQL, we did it at
$dayjob.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 11, 2021, at 12:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:32 PM wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William
No, this is a list for Network Operators.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote:
>
>
> This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other
> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my
> own work as an
This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote:
>
>
> No,
>
> It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to
> network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider
They have Amazon Aurora versions of many popular databases which are binary
compatible with the standard versions. So you can run standard Postgres on one
cloud and Aurora Postgres in AWS.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> On 1/10/21 10:21 AM,
You can certainly build platform agnostic applications on top of
AWS/Google/etc. but it requires more “work”. Using a platform like OpenShift
from Red Hat is one solution.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
>
> Peace,
>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at
Some yes, some no.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:09 PM, Brielle wrote:
>
> Well then... that’s a rather disturbing revelation.
>
> Out of curiosity, do these big facilities have armed guards of some sort,
> especially if the facility hosts financial or govt sites?
>
>
Funny, you must have found things all which are not me. You are really good at
Google. Hahahaha!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:42 AM, John Sage wrote:
>
> On 1/10/21 7:13 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>> Yes, significantly.
> Two observations:
>
> 1) you know not one
Yes, significantly.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Matt Hoppes
> wrote:
>
> Is that illegal though?
>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>>
>> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block
>> people, because
Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block
people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now
blocked government communication?
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com
NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking.
I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network
Operators.
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
>
>
> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was
Yes, it seems subsection (c)(2)(b) gives them cover, perhaps it’s time that
this is revised, less the Internet content become moderated by a small group of
private platform owners.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:05 AM, Daniel Jurado wrote:
>
>
> Government made it political.
>
Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at
all.
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
>
>
> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin wrote:
>>
While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for
violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in
the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to
liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts
I can promise 100% that in LARGE US 5G carriers this is exactly what is
happening. Virtual CU’s and DU’s, running on traditional virtualization
platforms and in containers.
An entire multi-vendor containerized 5G which replaces the 4G EPC is also in
testing, and close to production deployment.
Perhaps some organization of Network Operators should come up with an objective
standard of what constitutes “abuse” and a standard format for reporting it.
If only there was such an organization.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 29, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time,
https://hgis.uw.edu/virus
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 16, 2020, at 4:17 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Le 16/03/2020 à 20:08, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>>
>>
On Mar 16, 2020, at 07:04 , Alexandre Petrescu
wrote:
Le 16/03/2020 à 14:58, Mark Tinka a
The feasibility of back hauling power from a central location is almost zero.
Conduit can be direct buried and then fiber shot through it, this would be
almost impossible with DC power cables.
Keep in mind that WPS already provides priority to “priority” traffic.
Shane
Sent from my iPhone
>
Large operators have very little to gain from calling out the equipment
suppliers. In my personal experience large operators are already getting custom
code builds based on their exact requirements, which include disabling many of
the “standard” features they don’t use.
Sent from my iPhone
>
I think you are overestimating the existing network in most cases. And I say
this based on first hand experience at $dayjob MNO.
Shane
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> devices.
73 matches
Mail list logo
