On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" wrote:
>I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said
>eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
>that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
>than throttling me to (x),I consider
We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is
the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate
with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations
in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP
add
Colton Conor writes:
> We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is
> the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate
> with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations
> in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Colton Conor wrote:
How do you keep track of copyright violations in a CGNAT solution if
multiple customers are sharing the same public IP address?
You ask them to provide port numbers. If they can't, then you can't
identify a single subscriber.
If law enforcement comes
I searched carrier grade NAT in google, and A10 came up a lot. I thought
they just had good SEO going on, but it seems they have a good product as
well! Does A10 offer DHCP, DNS, and IPAM solutions as well? You really need
all 4 to handle carrier grade NAT on an access network right?
On Tue, Jul
It is common courtesy around these parts to not libel your customers,
especially when they're paying you lots of money and making up 30% of
your incoming traffic. That you're posting in "hypotheticals" does
not mask your true messaging.
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM, McEl
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a list
> of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation and keep
> track of the blocks to reduce logging load.
There's probably going to be som
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" wrote:
>> if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
>>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
>
> While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore
> decisi
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, "McElearney, Kevin" said:
> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
> bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If
> eyecandystore has inter
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said:
> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
> communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user.
See the various lawsuits
On Jul 29, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
>> If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a
>> list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation
>> and keep track of the block
On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice.
As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been
intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user.
--Chris
Usually, unless the judge is
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
> unique address? Really? I would not.
Does the *other* provider in your area have a more liberal policy?
pgpFZVOkelKin.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:10 AM,
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>
>> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
>> unique address? Really? I would not.
>
> Does the *other* provider in your area have a more liberal policy?
None of
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Robert Drake wrote:
>
> On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>
>> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
>> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
>> communications had been intercepted due to the ba
On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, "McElearney, Kevin" said:
>
>> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
>> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
>> bigger role delivering yo
Not exactly what you probably want. But it´s actually working for me:
http://ipv6netro.blogspot.de/2013/10/asamap-application-capability-in-wide.html
http://enog.jp/~masakazu/vyatta/map/
Am 29.07.2014 16:45, schrieb Colton Conor:
We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solut
Howdy folks,
It seems to me that we're moving in a direction where either
ratioless, high-capacity settlement-free peering will be a industry
requirement exercised voluntarily, or where some heavy-handed
government regulation will compel some kind of interconnection that
the holdouts find even les
Le 2014-07-29 13:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
Usually the window they give is ~ 3-5 seconds so they're pretty specific.
This assumes that your log server and theirs are synchronized to an accurate
time source within 3-5 seconds
Not really, since usually port blocks are not immediately reallocat
On 7/29/14, 12:57 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
>unique address? Really? I would not.
Relevant: http://comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg
;-)
- Jason
>As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
>unique address? Really? I would not.
My local DSL provider does CGN. I switched to cable, but because it
was faster, not because of the addressing. They would assign you a
global static IP just by calling up and asking
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not
>being supplied a globally unique address? Really?
Hi Owen,
I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few would
notice or care. So long as the ISP has an alternative available
The devil is in the details. Ken Florance
(http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html)
paints a different picture in his blog, for example.
As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any
ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? T
On 7/29/14 1:00 PM, "Robert Drake" wrote:
>
>On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>
>> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
>>practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
>>communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of
Colton Conor writes:
> I searched carrier grade NAT in google, and A10 came up a lot. I thought they
> just had good SEO going on, but it seems they have a good product as well!
> Does A10 offer DHCP, DNS, and IPAM solutions as well? You really need all 4 to
> handle carrier grade NAT on an acces
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:54:57PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said:
>
> > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
> > practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
> > communications had b
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Chris Boyd wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a
> > list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block
> > allocation and keep track of the
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:25:47PM +, McElearney, Kevin wrote:
> Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns)
"It takes two to lie, Marge: one to lie, and one to listen."
- Matt
OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers in
general, here are a few answers to common questions. This is based on the
setup I use which is CGNAT is done on the BNG (Cisco ASR1K6).
1. APNIC ran out of IPv4 a couple of years ago, so unless you want to pay
USD $10+ pe
On Jul 29, 2014, at 11:54 AM,
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said:
>
>> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
>> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
>> communications had been intercepted due to the bad beh
Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the
perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has
always had it).
On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, "Tony Wicks" wrote:
>OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers
>in
>general, here are a fe
It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if
you prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely
outcome of the FCC's net neutrality expedition. It wasn't that long ago
that a number of NANOGers insisted that such action by the FCC was
totally out
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the
> perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has
> always had it).
>
> On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, "Tony Wicks" wrote:
>
> >OK, as someone with experie
"Without comment" being a load of crap, as the subject is comment.
Because when I think integrity, I think sock puppets.
I’m curious what other providers have gone with when moving away from
SUP720-3BXL 6500 platforms. I’m platform agnostic and just as comfortable with
Juniper as with Cisco.
It’s a conversation were having since the 3BXL’s are running into limits with
the large number of prefixes, long eBGP conv
What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint
path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves
that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side
by side.
However I doubt Level3 is going to sit there and lie about their
c
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless
> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's
> internet acces
On Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:21:32AM +, Corey Touchet wrote:
> Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. Opinions on those are
> equally welcome as alternatives, but I?d love to hear from those with
> personal experiences today vs sales people trying to tell me it would route
> the worl
On 7/29/2014 6:42 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
Of course, getting anything back*out* of that again in any sort of
reasonable timeframe would be... optimistic. I suppose if you're storing it
all in hadoop you can map/reduce your way out of trouble, but that's going
to mean a lot of equipment sitting
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Corey Touchet
wrote:
> What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint
> path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves
> that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side
> by side.
Bee
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you
> prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome
> of the FCC's net neutrality expedition.
I don't think an FCC ban on paid peering is
In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> > 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
> > thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless
> > people wh
>>3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just
>>works.
Surprised it's that high.
So was I to be honest, but in general "It Just Works".
>>4. You need to log NAT translations for LI purposes. (IP
>>source/destination, Port source/destination, time) Surprisingly this
So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light"
before the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing
an unlikely outcome? For what purpose, trolling?
BTW, I'm not a lobbyist, but you already knew that.
RB
On 7/29/14, 4:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On
We gave up and went to ASR9ks but that that was also a pretty big budget
upgrade...
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:57 PM
To: Corey Touchet
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade Path Options from
In message <004601cfab84$19ef4e20$4dcdea60$@wicks.co.nz>, "Tony Wicks" writes:
> >>5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck.
> >
> >At least Xbox ONE prefers IPv6.
> >PS4 can, it just doesn't yet.
> >Maybe Kiwis don't play enough games for Sony to care?
>
> Few CPE rou
The 6880 has a single fixed Sup 2T. I believe you meant the
6807. That's what we are looking at to replace our 6500s. There
currently are no high density 10G cards out for the 6807 but our
account rep tells us a 32 port 1/10G SFP+ line card is coming
out in December. If it weren't for this new
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" before
> the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing an unlikely
> outcome?
I wasn't positing any specific government action. I opine only that
the c
Remembering the things (which had to do with network operations) that I
go banned for.
One wonders why I felt bad about it,
NANOG = NANAE us a slur on NANAE.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrator
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not
>> being supplied a globally unique address? Really?
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few wo
On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
>>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
>>> thing, perhaps one day, but
On 29/07/14 22:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a v
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
.
>> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
>> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you
>> need to do from day 1.
>
> That would be ni
On Monday, July 21, 2014 07:28:22 PM Scott Helms wrote:
> I'll be watching to see how well this roll out goes. If
> they didn't re-engineer their splits (or plan for
> symmetrical from the beginning) they could run into some
> problems because the total speed on a GPON port is
> asymmetrical, abo
In message
, Gary
Buhrmaster writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> .
> >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
> >> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less loggin
55 matches
Mail list logo
