On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Ow
On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Clay Fiske wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
>> when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
>> such a way that it will n
Srikanth Sundaresan schreef op 6-10-2014 0:43:
> Hi all,
>
> Netalyzr is a free network measurement and debugging app developed
> by the International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley.
>
Hi,
Maybe it's just me, but my Xperia T (LT30p) does have IPv6 on Wifi and
test-ipv6.com validates it. I
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Seth Mos wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but my Xperia T (LT30p) does have IPv6 on Wifi and
test-ipv6.com validates it. It runs Android 4.3.
However, the Netalyzer apps has told me in 2 consecutive runs that it
does not have IPv6 support.
That does not appear intended.
My Nexu
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
>> when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
>> such a way that it will not cau
Anyone out there seeing issues with Belkin routers connecting?
I have also noticed that Belkins website has 80 percent packet loss and their
support number is busy.
Luke Parrish | Network Operations Engineer I | Suddenlink Communications |
866.232.5455
The inf
Seeing reports bounce around on the WISPA lists. Looks to be widespread.
Reports on their twitter as well.
I've had one customer with an issue related thus far.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
From: "Parrish, Luke"
Sent: Tu
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23belkin
Sounds like a bad firmware update most likely.
Presumably the Belkin routers perform caching DNS for the LAN clients for if
the LAN clients use alternate DNS servers (OpenDNS, Google, your ISPs, etc)
there are no longer any issues for those devices, as repo
On Oct 7, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Justin Krejci wrote:
> https://twitter.com/search?q=%23belkin
>
> Sounds like a bad firmware update most likely.
> Presumably the Belkin routers perform caching DNS for the LAN clients for if
> the LAN clients use alternate DNS servers (OpenDNS, Google, your ISPs, e
Hi Group,
We have a couple of circuits , internet facing with Level 3 and from
our edge in San Diego, seeing some packet loss when trying a ping to
4.2.2.4, sourcing from 63.214.184.3. anyone seeing a similar issue ?
Packet sent with a source address of 63.214.184.3
!.!!!.!...!!!..!!!
On Oct 6, 2014, at 17:02, Jeff Shultz wrote:
> The B&O Train Museum is a must-see stop for anyone interested in railroads -
> http://www.borail.org/Collections.aspx
Following the trains & NANOG theme - one can visit the site of the Howard
Street Tunnel fire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howar
Not a weird issue. It's called packet loss. You might want to try some traces
to see where that loss is happening. Basic troubleshooting.
Steve Naslund
Chicago IL
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Khurram Khan
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014
The 4.2.2.x machines are known to have some pretty heavy handed ICMP rate
limits.
I'd suggest trying to hit anything on level3 but those...
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
From: "Khurram Khan"
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014
what's interesting is that out of my XO peering, I show no packet loss
but out of L3, I do see packet loss.
XO out of Denver:
Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 4.2.2.4, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of 69.171.180.67
!
Not to mention known bugs with how traffic is routed in large system like
Google...because of any/multicast and all. (I hear it's a known bug
internally.)
I personally love the Level 3 public DNS servers, but they do carry some
quirks with them, as all things in life do.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3
Geesh. It was a tough day - lots of our customers with Belkin devices. Agree it
has been fixable with customer changes but would have been better not to have
to respond to this today (obviously).
Regards,
Jason
Jason Livingood
Comcast - Internet Services
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:08, "Steve At
Sounds like it might have been a DNS issue of some sort. The end result was
that the customer routers couldn't reach their heartbeat server, which made
them think they weren't on the net. The routers would then be "helpful" and
redirect all customer port 80 traffic to the router's configuration pag
And this, my friends, is why friends don't let friends buy Belkin...
Apparently, you still can't fix stupid, no matter how hard you try.
-Mike
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, John Neiberger wrote:
> Sounds like it might have been a DNS issue of some sort. The end result was
> that the customer ro
While we weren't really impacted by this issue, my understanding is that
the Belkin devices ping 'heartbeat.belkin.com' periodically. If their
pings fail, they do DNS redirection to the device's configuration
interface and alert the user of the error.
It appears that this server went down or had s
Looks like belkin¹s fix was to add different records.
DNS response this morning.
heartbeat.belkin.com. 4h14m31s IN A 67.20.176.130
DNS response this evening.
dig heartbeat.belkin.com +short
54.163.115.57
23.20.47.97
54.227.172.225
54.161.217.33
54.163.87.225
54.87.220.73
54.163.74.132
54.83
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:27:16 -0600, John Neiberger said:
> Sounds like it might have been a DNS issue of some sort. The end result was
> that the customer routers couldn't reach their heartbeat server, which made
> them think they weren't on the net.
Seems like a dubious idea to equate "can't reac
On 10/07/2014 11:36 AM, Khurram Khan wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> We have a couple of circuits , internet facing with Level 3 and from
> our edge in San Diego, seeing some packet loss when trying a ping to
> 4.2.2.4, sourcing from 63.214.184.3. anyone seeing a similar issue ?
>
> Packet sent with a sou
I have a question for the company assembled:
Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using
their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of
company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone
service they offered and block cell ph
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even
bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where
the mobile carrier is the primary
On 10/7/2014 17:32, Mike Lyon wrote:
And this, my friends, is why friends don't let friends buy Belkin...
Amen.
Side question? What happens is somebody is unwise to use Belkin routers
on an internal, not-connected-to-the-Interatubes network (Like, for
example, the network I tried to get ex-
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
> I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
> likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as
they are not breaking reception to nearby properti
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
> The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
> of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
> phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special"
> local cell tower all their phone
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> I am having trouble understanding why a router would need a heartbeat from
> some foreign location. Or even what it would do with one.
One, not crazy, line of thinking is that: "Instead of being cryptic
and difficult to understand, help the
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone servic
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>
> > The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
> > of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
> > phone companies to a
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recogn
On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote:
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphas
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
> The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.
pgpz6n3Z670ZN
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they'r
On 10/8/2014 00:35, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectati
Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas
WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum. The
rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you
outlined.
Dan
On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
> I have a question for the compa
38 matches
Mail list logo
