used them for years, from when they were just a local ISP
till today. a good addition to your mix... great value for money.
--bill
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:41:23PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Hi folks...
>
> Looking for some feedback on using Hurricane Electric as an upstream?
>
> Tha
On Jun 14, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
For people trying to find the "list", check:
http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit
Since when has Level3 offered native IPv6? I nag our rep & SE's just
about every month on "when" and right now AFAIK it's still just tunnels
i can confirm that Level(3), at least in Madrid area is only offering tunneled
IPv6.
---
Nuno Vieira
nfsi telecom, lda.
nuno.vie...@nfsi.pt
Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301
http://www.nfsi.pt/
- "Robert Blayzor" wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > For people trying to find the "list", check:
> > http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit
>
> Since when has Level3 offered native IPv6? I nag our rep & SE's just
> about every month on "when" and right now AFAIK it's still just tunnels.
That's also our experience. We receive
we are taking Ipv6 from level 3 in London and it's also via tunnel (
they are not able to provide us native).
Tomas Caslavsky
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
For people trying to find the "list", check:
http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit
Since when has Level3 offered nat
Thanks to everyone who replied to this question - I got a LOT of offline
replies plus some of them online here
The response was *very* positive and I appreciate again folks taking the
time to drop me a line...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
[mailto:bman
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 09:04:50PM -, John Levine wrote:
> Not that I've ever seen. Nobody else has the breadth of data that
> Spamhaus does.
>
> I've been using it for ages and based on zero complaints, it's never
> blocked anything that any of my users wanted.
I strongly concur with John:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
>
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters apart. The current setup for this
> company has been extremely unstable and slow. I don't have a lo
Although this would probably be better suited for one of the WISPA
lists, I'll respond here anyhow since there seems to be some interest.
For managing Canopy elements, Motorola Prizm is probably the way to go.
First of all, you'll need it to handle element authentication for your
PtMP system.
We've used aironet since before cisco owned it. We just recently went fiber
for most of the district, but still running one aironet connection a good
distance apart.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> > Hi NANOG,
>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters apart. The current setup for this
> company has been extremely unstable and slow. I don't have a lot of
> experien
Peter Boone wrote:
Hi NANOG,
I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
two locations approximately 500-800 meters apart. The current setup for this
company has been extremely unstable and slow. I don't have a lot of
experience in this area so I was hoping someo
Cisco Aironet www.cisco.com
Alvarion www.alvarion.com
Aruba www.arubanetworks.com
bluesocket www.bluesocket.com
I've used all but bluesocket and they all worked pretty well.
bluesocket gets good reviews. These are just a few. There are lots of
them. Try to use one as and access point and
Pair of Ubuquiti power station 2 or 5 bridges, 5 would be preferable,
under $200 per end.
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/ps5_datasheet.pdf
Peter Boone wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
>
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters a
Thanks for all the good info..
So it sounds like changing my CAM timeout to 4 hours is the best
suggestion. Anyone have any problems when implementing this?
We use Intermapper. It's very flexible, and offers a 'wireless probe' package,
which covers Motorola Canopy and their PTP products, along with several other
hardware vendors (Alvarion, Atmel, MikroTik, etc). Also, it's written in Java,
and runs on just about anything.
It does monitoring and (ve
> (for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be down for
> at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
Sounds like there are trees in the line of sight, and maybe they are getting
leafier over the years. The only solution to that is to change the path if
it is possible.
Holmes,David A wrote:
> In a layer 3 switch I consider unicast flooding due to an L2 cam table
> timeout a design defect. To test vendors' L3 switches for this defect we have
> used a traffic generator to send 50-100 Mbps of pings to a device that does
> not reply to the pings, where the L3 swit
We're a WISP, so I have lots of experience with this kind of thing. The problem
with using 2.4GHz equipment is that there's a whole lot of noise out there (run
Network Stumbler sometime on a laptop with a wireless card, and you'll be
shocked by just how many wi-fi APs are floating around).
You
Speaking of the devil:
"Comcast plans to enter into broadband IPv6 technical trials later
this year and into 2010," {Barry Tishgart, VP of Internet Services for
Comcast} said. "Planning for general deployment is underway."
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/18/1417201/Comcast-To-Bring-IPv6-To-Res
> (for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be down
> for at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
very low (approachin
The ones I can recommend in that line are the headsets from David Clark.
I've used these for decades in some of the harshest noise locations with
great success. While most of the adaptors I use are home made I suspect that
they can supply one for about any application. They have for me.
http://w
> From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
> > (for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be
> down for
> > at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
>
> Sounds like there are trees in the line of sight, and maybe they are
> getting
> leafier over the y
This message is sent to the whole nanog list, rather than the
nanog-attendees list, as I'm not sure who would be watching that
list when the conference is over.
I stood up to ask a question at the end of Mark Koster's presentation
yesterday, but before I got to the end of the table, he was being
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> Oh I know. Luckily it's located in an industrial area just on the
> outskirts
> of the city. There isn't a lot of other WiFi (in my opinion); 3-5
> total
> SSIDs spread across 2 of the 3 physical channels (1,6,11) depending on
> which
> roofto
Cisco aironet ...reliable and the ony way to go ...
Chris ledford
CCNA CCSP CWLSS
--Original Message--
From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
ReplyTo: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 17, Issue 51
Sent: Jun 18, 2009 9:23 AM
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
> The line of sight is all clear, no trees. Only one building along the way
> has a rooftop of similar height, but the antennas are extended far above
> the
> roofline. We have used a rifle scope to confirm line of sight is all clear
> at all angles.
>
Unfortunately, you can't necessarily rely on
On 6/18/09, Brian Shope wrote:
> Thanks for all the good info..
>
> So it sounds like changing my CAM timeout to 4 hours is the best
> suggestion. Anyone have any problems when implementing this?
Not as long as all the user ports have portfast enabled. Without
portfast, when a port goes up or d
To come up with an accurate recommendation one really needs to know your
budget, on that distance speeds up to 1 gbit/sec are possible if you
spend enough on the radios...Do you have some cost and desired
throughput parameters to guide everyone's recommendations?
-Original Message-
Fr
> -Original Message-
> From: Lyndon Nerenberg [mailto:lyn...@orthanc.ca]
> Sent: June 18, 2009 12:11 PM
> To: Peter Boone
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
>
> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> > Oh I know. Luckily it's located in an industrial area
Jason Gurtz wrote:
Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
very low (approaching 1:1 but certainly less than 2:1). Hook up the meter
in-line at the AP. Test this after everything is wet a
> Jason Gurtz wrote:
>
>> Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
>> an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
>> very low (approaching 1:1 but certainly less than 2:1). Hook up the
>> meter
>> in-line at the AP. Test this after ev
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:49:36 -0400
> From: Bret Clark
> Subject: Re: spamhaus drop list
>
> John Levine wrote:
> > Not that I've ever seen. Nobody else has the breadth of data that
> > Spamhaus does.
> >
> > I've been using it for ages and based on zero complaints, it's never
> > blocked any
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
Oh I know. Luckily it's located in an industrial area just on the
outskirts
of the city. There isn't a lot of other WiFi (in my opinion); 3-5
total
SSIDs spread across 2 of the 3 physical channels (1,6,11) depending
Might I suggest Ubnt.com ?
Or a vendor that I use http://www.wlanparts.com/category/ubiquiti/
Couple of these
http://www.wlanparts.com/product/BULLET2-D13/Ubiquiti_BULLET2_and_13dBi_24GHz_Panel_Antenna__BULLET2D13.html
(100.00 per side or so).
Peter Boone wrote:
Hi NANOG,
I'm lookin
+1 for Ubnt gear!
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Pair of Ubuquiti power station 2 or 5 bridges, 5 would be preferable,
under $200 per end.
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/ps5_datasheet.pdf
Peter Boone wrote:
2.4 and 5GHz license-free Wifi is license free because the frequencies
are shared with the ISM (Industrial/Scientific/Medical) services. In an
industrial area, competing WiFi is the least of your worries. These
frequencies are also used by industrial grade heating units. Got anyone
in the neigh
This list is quite active:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
+1 for Wispa. Several knowledgeable people on there, and it's quite active.
Lately both NANOG and WISPA have had very high signal. Hopefully it
keeps up! :)
Peter Boone wrote:
From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
(for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be
down for
at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
Sounds like there are trees in the line of sight, and maybe they ar
Hi List
I'm looking for two tier 1 providers in Montreal, with independent
fiber runs to the city.Which operator fit this criteria?
Thanks in advance
//MKS
check TATA Communications (former Teleglobe).
regards,
--nvieira
- "MKS" wrote:
> Hi List
>
> I'm looking for two tier 1 providers in Montreal, with independent
> fiber runs to the city.Which operator fit this criteria?
>
> Thanks in advance
> //MKS
Couple of comments:
Regarding ISM spectrum sharing: the 2.4 GHZ band (2400-2500 MHz) and the
5.8 GHz (5725-5875 MHz) are certainly shared with ISM devices- microwave
ovens, induction heaters, etc. However, the 5.2 and 5.4 GHz unlicensed
bands (UNII) are not shared with ISM devices. However, th
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 09:34 -0700, John van Oppen wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Huffman [mailto:t...@bobbroadband.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:27 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
>
> > The line of sight is all clear, no trees. Only one building
I use the Peltor Bluetooth headset in our datacenter. Works better than
most earplugs for noise attenuation, plus as a cell phone headset it has
the noise cancelling microphone.
The construction quality is really good, it could be used on a
construction site without issues.
I highly recommend it
Relying on a TCN would yield very inconsistent results.
Lee wrote:
> On 6/18/09, Brian Shope wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all the good info..
>>
>> So it sounds like changing my CAM timeout to 4 hours is the best
>> suggestion. Anyone have any problems when implementing this?
>>
>
> Not as lon
Brian,
> The first is preventing it in the first place.
As annoying as this might sound, this is one of the
standard operating modes for load balancing within
a Microsoft server cluster (see NLB). We've tried
to avoid it, but it seems to come up around once a
year from someone on our campus...
It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.
I wonder which ISPs are still doing so. I know comcast has been doing that
but they cancelled it after many complaints. It seems to be the same case
for Verizon.
AT&T is
Le jeudi 18 juin 2009 à 12:05 -0400, Sandy Murphy a écrit :
> This message is sent to the whole nanog list, rather than the
> nanog-attendees list,
How come there is a nanog-attendees list disjunct from the nanog list.
Wouldn't it be natural to broadcast any kind of content to the
entire community
We still do it and never get any complaints - we don't filter static IP
customers but dynamic customers can either use our SMTP relays or
alternate ports
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Zhiyun Qian [mailto:zhiy...@umich.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:37 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sub
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:35:53 +0200, Michael Hallgren said:
> How come there is a nanog-attendees list disjunct from the nanog list.
> Wouldn't it be natural to broadcast any kind of content to the
> entire community?
Umm... "Presentation XYZ has been moved from the Blue Room to the Paisley Room"
On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
Le jeudi 18 juin 2009 à 12:05 -0400, Sandy Murphy a écrit :
This message is sent to the whole nanog list, rather than the
nanog-attendees list,
How come there is a nanog-attendees list disjunct from the nanog list.
Wouldn't it be natural
Zhiyun Qian wrote:
It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.
Well blocking or redirecting to there servers, which have an
undocumented filtering policy. All one needs to do in order to bypass
that is use a
Michael Hallgren wrote:
Le jeudi 18 juin 2009 à 12:05 -0400, Sandy Murphy a écrit :
This message is sent to the whole nanog list, rather than the
nanog-attendees list,
How come there is a nanog-attendees list disjunct from the nanog list.
Wouldn't it be natural to broadcast any kind of
Do you provide your users an SMTP server to use, with some out bound
spam filtering?
It would seem this is to be expected, as you don't want your IP ranges
showing up on RBL filters.
Do you force SSL connectivity like AT&T does?
Paul Stewart wrote:
We still do it and never get any complaint
We don't force SSL but do have several SMTP servers they can use
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wyble [mailto:char...@thewybles.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:55 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?
Do you provide your users an SMTP server to u
Le jeudi 18 juin 2009 à 15:49 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu a écrit :
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:35:53 +0200, Michael Hallgren said:
>
> > How come there is a nanog-attendees list disjunct from the nanog list.
> > Wouldn't it be natural to broadcast any kind of content to the
> > entire community?
Le jeudi 18 juin 2009 à 12:51 -0700, kris foster a écrit :
> On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 18 juin 2009 à 12:05 -0400, Sandy Murphy a écrit :
> >> This message is sent to the whole nanog list, rather than the
> >> nanog-attendees list,
> >
> > How come there
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:36:44PM -0400, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
> It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
> of reducing spam originated from their network.
Yes, it is standard practice for non-server accounts and most dynamic-only
accounts; only allow unauthentic
>I wonder which ISPs are still doing so. I know comcast has been doing
>that but they cancelled it after many complaints. It seems to be the
>same case for Verizon.
You're mistaken. Comcast most certainly does port 25 filtering,
although not necessarily on every line at every moment. So does
Ver
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
> SUBMIT
> port [587] anyway...
Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587 connections
Joe Provo wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:36:44PM -0400, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.
Yes, it is standard practice for non-server accounts and most dynamic-only
accounts; only a
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
>> then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
>> SUBMIT
>> port [587] anyway...
>
> Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
> a big p
Once upon a time, Peter Boone said:
> I'll double check
> grounding on the poles but I'm somewhat afraid to turn it into a lightning
> rod.
If it is a high point on a roof, it is a lightning rod already. You
ground the antenna and mount to give the lightning a better path to
ground than running
Very true Eric. Microsoft even acknowledges the issue, and still has not
fixed it. I have had a few customers use NLB and have this issue.
Eric Gauthier wrote:
> Brian,
>
>
>> The first is preventing it in the first place.
>>
>
> As annoying as this might sound, this is one of the
> standa
Christopher Morrow wrote:
in all seriousness, most isp's (consumer provider folk) today do some
form of blocking of port 25, if you are 'smart' enough to evade this
sort of thing, then you can still do email/blah. 99.999% of users are:
1) not interested in bypassing it
2) not clued into what's go
Steven King wrote:
Very true Eric. Microsoft even acknowledges the issue, and still has not
fixed it. I have had a few customers use NLB and have this issue.
Eric Gauthier wrote:
Brian,
The first is preventing it in the first place.
As annoying as this might sound, this is one of the
All,
If there is anyone good with Ciena Online Metro systems that would be
willing to do some contract work around Atlanta, please contact me off list.
Thanks!
-Scott
It looks like Buffalo - Toronto - Montreal - Albany - Buffalo is a
popular ring route to connect into Canada
e.g. Level3 and Cogent use it (according to their online network maps),
It looks like these carriers (Global Crossing, Level 3, Cogent, Tata,
Tinet) have a pop in Montreal, does someone k
Hibernia Atlantic is a leading wholesaler on that route. Many IP backbones use
us. Most carriers use 360 conduit into Montreal. We do not. Lots of carriers
use Wiltel conduit into Buffalo and then 360 into Canada.
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
-Original
Level(3) has a lot of fiber in that ring route ... not sure who else
covers those areas from a physical perspective
Paul
-Original Message-
From: MKS [mailto:rekordmeis...@gmail.com]
Sent: June 18, 2009 6:08 PM
To: Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: tire 1 in
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Charles Wyble wrote:
> Ouch... latency must be awful.
>
> I suppose this is based on Cogents reputation but who knows. The whole
> peering aspect of the networking business is often a mystery.
I dont think it is any mystery Cogent doesn't have many friends in the
E
OK, from reading all the excellent feedback I've got on and off list I've
attempted to compile a "quick" summary of findings/ideas/products so far.
- RouterBoard is no good for this type of application.
- Get a unit with radio/antenna integrated, PoE from inside the building
(outdoor rated cat5,
Peter Boone wrote:
> - Get a unit with radio/antenna integrated, PoE from inside the building
> (outdoor rated cat5, shielded I assume),
Actually shielding doesn't matter so much and it requires that the rj45
connector and socket be similarly sheilded to be effective, the salient
points are: uv s
I didn't read through all of the replies to see if this was suggested,
apologies if it was.
http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=sw7k&page=feat
I implemented a PTP link at about 3 miles using these Solectek radios. I
get 40Mbps consistently with TCP traffic and ~100Mbps UDP. This PTP link
74 matches
Mail list logo
