If any RSPs currently have any reports of 100/20 UFB Right Performing
customers having only 2M upload could you contact me offlist? If you do
contact me I'm really interested in where your BNG is and where your
customers are with the issue.
If any end users are on 100/20 with only 2M upload also feel free to
contact me. I'm more interested in your location and your ISP in this case.
(representing Inspire Net in this post)
I have a surplus-to-requirements cableways rack available to a good home. It’s in Auckland (Blockhouse Bay), and you have to come and pick it up.
If you want to give me money for it, that’d be great, if the best offer is someone who’ll just take it away, that’ll do.
I'm trying to track down the NZNOG pool of power leads and multiboards;
i'm hoping to borrow these if possible.
Queries to the NZNOG conference team don't seem to be going anywhere and
i'm not sure who the organisers for this year are, to ping them personally.
Does anyone know the wherabouts of these?
Offlist responses perhaps most appropriate.
I'm interested in some feedback (off list) from anyone using either
Vodafone VSI or Spark's SecureME offerings. We're currently looking into
both of these for a group of hospitality outlets.
IT Manager | Pack & Company | 027 461 4403 | 09 929 2750 |
you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not disclose,
copy, or distribute any information contained in or attached to it, or
take any action/inaction based on it. Please contact us immediately, and
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions presented in
this email are solely those of the author and not of Pack & Company (NZ)
Limited (the "Company"), however any intellectual property contained in or
attached to this email is the property of the Company. Thank you.
The latest useful community service from Team Cymru
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Kristoff <jtk(a)cymru.com>
[ Apologies if you have seen this elsewhere already - jtk ]
Friends and colleagues,
Last week I briefly discussed a new project we've recently launched and
for which invited participation from the NANOG 62 attendees. This is a
not so subtle wider request for consideration. UTRS is essentially a
community RTBH that people have suggested to us would be a good service
to provide, so we're giving it a go. The lightning talk page has the
slide deck I presented:
I've also put some additional technical detail here:
There was a brief discussion, mostly criticism and that is fine, that
took place on the NANOG list you may wish to review.
If you have an assigned ASN and this sounds like something you or your
network would like to take advantage of, drop me a line, I'd sure like
to hear about it.
If you think this is a terrible idea and want to express all that is
wrong with it, tell me that too, I can take it.
Even if you're unsure if you would ultimately deploy it in production,
but are interested in testing it, do contact me. We won't expend energy
on this project and will drop it if we there isn't sufficient interest
from the community, but enough trial users would be encouraging.
Has anyone had any luck communicating with Facebook network operations in
the past? They appear to be filtering our shiny new /22 and it is making
clients somewhat grumpy.
Netspeed Data Ltd
PO Box 5691
P: +64 3 481 7245
C: +64 21 323 841
We have just stood up our first Chorus UFB Handovers in Auckland and Wellington and while the Mikrotik’s are showing the interfaces as running Chorus are telling me their end is “operationally down”.
I have tried changing all the settings I have on my end and they are still reporting the same result.
I have tried alternative optics, checked light levels with a meter, and even had a Chorus tech out to take a look.
Chorus originally pointed to the SFP+ being the issue, now they are saying the config is wrong on my device and that they aren’t “seeing layer two”.
I have asked them for any errors on the port or similar and they haven’t reported any to me.
I am a little stumped here and would appreciate the advice of anyone doing either 1G or 10G HO Links for UFB with Chorus who could provide any input or any idea of issues they have seen with the configs that would help me diagnose this issue and resolve it.
Thank you for your time.
Neilson Productions Limited
021 329 681
022 456 2326
The change in the CFI to DEI occurred between the 802.1q
2005 and the 2011 versions.
In 802.1q 2005 section 9.6 Octet 1 bit 5 was defined for use
as CFI (Canonical Format Indicator) whereas in the 2011
version of the standard (also shown in section 9.6), this
bit has been redefined as the DEI (Discard Eligible
The diagram is for a single .Q tag but I assume it also
applies to additional tags.
> From: Nathan Ward [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2014 1:26 p.m.
> To: Brent Marquis; Dave Mill; Don Stokes
> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [nznog] UFB Upload Issues
> On 9 October 2014 at 1:09:42 pm, Brent Marquis
> is(a)chorus.co.nz))> wrote: >
> > Sorry for the quick reply to myself!
> > It actually seems like Don might not be 100% correct.
> > I don?t have IEEE access to get the .1q standard? But
> Wikipedia suggests it has been updated in 2005 for CFI to
> be DEI: >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1ad
> > Drop eligible indicator (DEI): a 1-bit field. (formerly
> May be used separately or in conjunction with PCP to
> indicate frames eligible to be dropped in the presence of
> te_note-4) >
> > With the note suggesting ? ?IEEE 802.1Q-2005 clause 9.6?
> > If it?s on Wikipedia, it must be true?. Right? J
> The quote above is from the 802.1q page. If you read the
> page you link to, the 802.1ad page, you get:
> In IEEE 802.1ad the CFI is replaced by a Drop Eligibility
> Indicator (DEI), increasing the functionality of the PCP
> Key bit is ?802.1ad?, not 802.1q. Using 0x88a8 vs
> 0x8100/0x9100 is signalling that you?re using 802.1ad vs.
> stacked 802.1q, so should set this bit appropriate to the
> tag type. I?m with Don on this one - the frame type bits
> signal how to interpret the following bits, you can?t just
> swap them around.
> People should really just use 0x88a8 - those who aren?t,
> can I ask why not? Is it because you?re trying to tunnel
> it over a switch that doesn?t support 802.1ad or
> something? I?m not saying it?s wrong, I?m interested in
> understanding the situations in which you might do this.
> Nathan Ward
> This communication, including any attachments, is
> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you should not read it - please
> contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use
> any part of this communication or disclose anything about
> it. Thank you. No confidentiality or privilege is waived
> or lost by any mis-transmission or error. Please note that
> this communication does not designate an information
> system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act