Re: PfSense + ubiquity

Top Page
This message is part of the following thread:
Mthe complete thread tree sorted by date
MStephen Partington via PLUG-discuss at <-
MMichael Butash via PLUG-discuss at ->
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
+ (text/html)
+ (text/plain)
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Thomas Scott via PLUG-discuss
Date:  
To: Main PLUG discussion list
CC: Thomas Scott
Subject: Re: PfSense + ubiquity
They are welcome to, but node splits are a 6 month minimum last I checked
😁 - granted we're getting faster with how many we're doing. In the next 5
years, most cable operators will implement some sort of aggressive node
splitting to keep up with demand. Current employer not excluded.

I've had CLink on fiber - they're upstream nodes are a little more
saturated, but they do peer locally in the valley. Current employer does
have peering with FAANG and a couple other heavy hitters in the valley (not
any proprietary information here, any trace route from the valley to those
sites will show it terminating in 2 or 3 hops), but if I recall correctly
70% of CLink traffic hits their DCs in Phoenix. Granted it's all best
effort past that, but if you don't have a heavily saturated node, you'll do
all right. GPON fiber is GPON fiber, regardless of Service Provider. It's
just a question of how many other subscribers are on your PON port and how
big the upstream links are.

- Thomas Scott | <>


On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:04 PM Stephen Partington via PLUG-discuss <
> wrote:

> This last bit is interesting. I have Cox Fiber (no data cap for Gigablast
> fiber yet) and Century Link just announced a competing service in my area.
> For about half the cost. For the same Gigabit Fiber (or 940mbps as they are
> calling it).
>
> Anyone with any experience with them on residential fiber?
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:59 AM Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss <
> > wrote:
>
>> So Cox subs can reach out to you when we're having saturation issues? :)
>>
>> Having been around for the beginnings of cable modem tech at @home
>> networks in the 90's dealing with almost every big MSO (Cox, Comcast, ATT,
>> Intermedia, etc), I like to talk about the tech as a bit proud where it's
>> gone. I liked Cox as one of the last decent hold-outs for things like
>> keeping Usenet around longer than they should, not killing customers for
>> mpaa/riaa abuse complaints, and keeping data caps off when the industry was
>> moving in that direction, so I think they're better than the rest, but
>> eventually they hopped on the money train with data caps too. And now
>> they're paying for their pro-pirate stance as well with lawsuits against
>> them winning
>> <https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/legal-and-management/8546842/cox-1-billion-piracy-lawsuit-labels-publishers>,
>> probably using that extra cap revenue to pay the trolls.
>>
>> Would I go back? Not as long as they have data caps, and someone else
>> around me doesn't, but yes - much better network. I don't like random
>> overages in my bill, I get that enough with power. If I thought the covid
>> restrictions to remove caps would hold, I'd probably switch back now, but
>> I'm sure they'll find a reason to reimplement them asap as that's lost
>> revenue on your rsu's.
>>
>> It's always good to hear from other docsis speakers, welcome back!
>>
>> -mb
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:54 PM Thomas Scott <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Day job is for a certain ISP HQ in Atlanta that supplies internet for a
>>> lot of the valley - I work in Network Operations first in Phoenix and now
>>> in Atlanta, and was surprised to see so much of what I talk about everyday
>>> in PLUG!
>>>
>>> CLink trying to play FTTN as FTTH, nothing new there. I live in a
>>> neighborhood outside of Atlanta that had some AT&T brownfield development
>>> for FTTH, and I've had no regrets (300 up 300 down!) Cox is moving towards
>>> "10G" with DOCSIS 4.0 and they are getting fiber closer to the home with
>>> their node splits. If you find that you all off a sudden have an extra hop
>>> in your path, that might be the seen you've been on one of those nodes that
>>> have been lit and split. The amount of bandwidth going up and down will go
>>> up dramatically.
>>>
>>> @Michael - yeah I don't think the caps are going anywhere, the industry
>>> as a whole (driven by big red) has moved that direction, but I think you'll
>>> see speeds and caps rise as N+0 goes to full duplex DOCSIS. I do know
>>> they've been relaxed with the COVID-19 FCC initiatives, but how long that
>>> lasts, I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> @Mac - the cox supplied modems are almost all going to "Panoramic Wi-Fi"
>>> and the number of holes found in DOCSIS devices is... disturbing to say the
>>> least. It was designed to be operated on a shared RF medium, and like other
>>> "trusting" protocols (i.e. BGP) has a lot of issues. The more virtualized
>>> it becomes, I think we'll see more of those go away - the smaller the
>>> broadcast domains, and the smaller the first upstream router, the better
>>> those will be able to be maintained and automated. Looking at the road
>>> maps, it will be interesting what comes next.
>>>
>>> - Thomas Scott | <>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:54 PM Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss <
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oddly enough, the model number of your router stuck in my head, the
>>>> C3000Z, and I realized I used the same thing, but for my 150mbps dsl
>>>> modem. You sure you have actual gig fiber? They tend to misrepresent
>>>> their actual products in sales. Ask me how I know.
>>>>
>>>> <tldr>
>>>>
>>>> I say this because I called CL before going to them, and asked if I
>>>> could get fiber in the network. They said yes. Hmm, I knew damn well they
>>>> did not, as no one wants to build fiber into old peoria neighborhoods such
>>>> as mine. After some conversation and calling him out, he explained that
>>>> "oh, it's a gigabit network", just not fiber to your house. I could get
>>>> dual-band DSL, which means 75mbps x2, for a total of 150mbps, delivered by
>>>> a gigabit network! I sort of facepalmed, but ordered it anyways as it was
>>>> significantly more than I had with cox (80mbps at the time I think),
>>>> significantly cheaper, and no bandwidth cap.
>>>>
>>>> If there is anything other than fiber directly in your modem, I'd call
>>>> bullocks, but FTTH is a myth to me.
>>>>
>>>> Crappier service, but I'll take the (usually) cheap and fast. It is
>>>> most certainly not gigabit fiber to my house, even though that's what they
>>>> tried to sell me I was getting. Only new house/community builds get fiber,
>>>> and if even that. Cox did the same to compete with Google fiber, and as
>>>> soon as Google Fiber died, so did Cox ever mentioning fiber again. Truth
>>>> is Cox doesn't need it, shielded coax can deliver soon 10g over it just
>>>> fine with new modulation schemas and docsis improvements. Centurylink's
>>>> 100 year old 2-8 wire infrastructure cannot, all they can do is build new
>>>> with fiber, but they probably won't being decrepit.
>>>>
>>>> I hear friends of mine mention they have fiber, and wonder just if they
>>>> really do. This is why Google Fiber folded, it was unrealistic unless a
>>>> net-new community build. Google fiber retrofits were a disaster
>>>> <https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-a-failed-experi-1833244198>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Fun-fact: Oddly enough the guy that built Google Fiber, Milo Medin, is
>>>> the same guy that started @Home Networks back in late 90's for Cable Modem
>>>> services, and pioneered current industry standards in use today globally to
>>>> deliver cable internet. The last-mile regional MSO providers snuffed
>>>> him/company back then, took it over themselves, and then they snuffed him
>>>> out again as he tried the same incursion with Google Fiber, and realized it
>>>> just cost too damn much to compete. Cable Monopolies, flawless victory.
>>>>
>>>> Next I expect he'll team up with Elon or Bezos to try again via
>>>> terrestrial.
>>>>
>>>> -mb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:32 AM Michael Butash <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I tend to find the CL network a bit wonky, having moved to DSL from
>>>>> Cox (damn bandwidth caps). I find the general performance is worse than
>>>>> cox, where I suspect they simply don't manage the bandwidth and are far too
>>>>> oversubscribed as it feels like the internet buffers at times, literally.
>>>>> Cox would occasionally get that way too, and it was easy to see in an
>>>>> ongoing MTR when their peering in LA would get slammed and latency would
>>>>> jump (not to mention I know the guys that manage that bandwidth, telling
>>>>> them often got it fixed). Oddly Using MTR with CL, they filter icmp/udp
>>>>> specifically that seems to hide responses to track well. Go figure, truth
>>>>> hurts, so hide it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having worked for service providers numerous times over the years,
>>>>> working in and building them, routers are always an issue in a metro city
>>>>> or even interstate networks. No two platforms are ever the same, whether
>>>>> buying all Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, or any combo of all and more, which as
>>>>> you said, many do. Hardest part is usually capacity planning, particularly
>>>>> with something like covid, every isp took a kick in the groin at the same
>>>>> time to augment their networks, suddenly by some magnitude, when everyone
>>>>> else in the world is doing the same. Slowness in networking can often be
>>>>> attributed to those not having enough capacity, though they'll never admit
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm on the 150mbps dsl, and a speed test can provide that for sure,
>>>>> but general usage, which I use a lot of tabs and apps, tends to bring
>>>>> things to a crawl often. I'd even go back to cox if they got rid of the
>>>>> bandwidth cap. CL might as well be government, and they're run by unions,
>>>>> so nothing happens fast, including capacity augments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re: mac limits, having been around Cox both as a customer and network
>>>>> engineer working there early 2000's, the mac security was more about
>>>>> limiting the amount of hosts behind a modem that could be allowed to a
>>>>> single mac and IP address. Back Circa 1998 I had my first Cox modem, and
>>>>> there were no routers, you just got yourself a phat 10baset switch from
>>>>> computer city and connected up your family on public ip addresses, each
>>>>> with their own mac and ip's. With no limits or filters that led to
>>>>> security issues (hey, I see my neighbor's c drive shared!), Cox and others
>>>>> then pushed people to then buy a router, which by then around 2002, you
>>>>> could buy a cheap wrt54g linksys. The advent of docsis also allowed to
>>>>> both filter and restrict the macs by default, also let them reduce to now
>>>>> 1:1 IP to User ratio, which was good for ip management, the abuse
>>>>> departments, and fbi warrants from legal. You used to be able to buy
>>>>> another ip, they'd push a new docsis config with mac-alowed=2, but not
>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same reasons they're just building in the router functions now, it
>>>>> ensures they can offer some basic customer security, plus lets them run
>>>>> whatever spyware in their embedded router os they want. Better off buying
>>>>> your own standalone modem and router combo, one you ideally trust.
>>>>>
>>>>> -mb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:07 PM Donald Mac McCarthy via PLUG-discuss <
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting a CL modem into a bridge mode where it only handles the PPPoE
>>>>>> connection is simply checking a radial select button and hitting apply. If
>>>>>> your firewall supports PPoE, even better, as you no longer need their Modem
>>>>>> and router in the mix. But, that is just my experience, and it is limited.
>>>>>> I have a CL fiber to the door drop, and they gave me a Zyxel C3000Z device
>>>>>> for connection. I promptly ripped it out and allowed pfSense to maintain
>>>>>> the PPPoE connection. I had to call support for packet loss one time, and
>>>>>> they refused to help me. So goes it rolling your own I guess. Turns out a
>>>>>> day later we had a several hour outage due to one of the multiplexing cards
>>>>>> used to distribute the 40Gb/s core fiber to the GPON devices failed. Seems
>>>>>> like that was a likely culprit for some of the packet loss the previous day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having just gotten off a call in which the Senior Director of
>>>>>> Security Architecture and Engineering (a friend of mine from Atlanta) for
>>>>>> Cox was a participant, before he hung up I asked him about the typical Cox
>>>>>> supplied modems. Very, very few of them are purely bridge devices -
>>>>>> especially with the push to "Panoramic WiFi". A member of CentryLink who
>>>>>> was also on the call (ISP InfoSec sharing/working group) mentioned how
>>>>>> painful it was to support the number of company issued
>>>>>> modems/gateway/router models there are for different infrastructure and
>>>>>> connections - let alone ones that customers buy and bring to the party.
>>>>>> BTW, the MAC address thing is because they do actually use a MAC locking
>>>>>> like feature for security. Apparently it is bad for the network if you just
>>>>>> go plug your modem in at several houses in the neighborhood due to the way
>>>>>> DOCSIS works. I still have to dig into that and ask some more questions on
>>>>>> that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a collective groan among the engineers when another ISP
>>>>>> spoke up about the number of critical flaws they find in their DOCIS
>>>>>> devices each year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the amount of consolidation which has happened in the past 20
>>>>>> years in the broadband market, the landscape is riddled with legacy bits
>>>>>> and pieces of this provider and that provider somehow being coerced into
>>>>>> working together to accomplish passing traffic. One of the ISPs mentioned
>>>>>> they had no less than 350 different models of core switching equipment made
>>>>>> by more than a dozen manufacturers in their network. They have a team of 40
>>>>>> (really 5 teams of 8) that simply monitor and ensure that the OSPF
>>>>>> functions properly among the various models and brands to make sure that
>>>>>> the network properly heals/manages congestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, just throwing it out so that people can see and understand
>>>>>> the picture at a higher level. The final comment on the call was from an
>>>>>> engineer at a midwestern rural provider and one that I am sure many of us
>>>>>> can relate to. She said she spends all day pulling her hair out trying to
>>>>>> keep the network functioning at the highest of levels. The first words out
>>>>>> of her kids' mouths when she gets home are "Mom, the WiFi seems slow today."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I talked with Alexander this afternoon, and it looks like he has a
>>>>>> functioning network again. The APs were reluctant to give up their old
>>>>>> configuration, so a factory reset and new DHCP leases seem to have done the
>>>>>> trick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully this sheds a bit of light on something for a few people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss wrote on 5/4/20 4:59 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ideally when you plug into a cable modem, it comes up, and passes
>>>>>> your ethernet to the cmts in a bridge, lets one mac address dhcp/arp, and
>>>>>> things work. It learns that one ip/mac, and disallows any other mac. No
>>>>>> security, nat, nothing, just real dumb dhcp + default routing with a public
>>>>>> ip. Routers/firewalls try to NAT you, thus double NAT if using a router
>>>>>> behind it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CL sells you a dsl modem/router that does your local security whether
>>>>>> you want it or not, full router/nat/firewall, and probably spyware. Making
>>>>>> it a modem is possible, but takes work, and your firewall has to support
>>>>>> PPPoE (not all can/do). Last time I touched a combo Cox router/modem, I
>>>>>> didn't see any way to do so. I told them to buy a real modem, and that
>>>>>> worked with their belkin/cisco/linksys/netgear they had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your "modem" mentions wifi, it's a router/firewall, not a modem.
>>>>>> Not all are clear about this, as they dumb it down for consumers, but an
>>>>>> important point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -mb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:53 PM Stephen Partington via PLUG-discuss <
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I Owned a Nighthawk Router/Modem combo, The way that Netgear handled
>>>>>>> that is that the modem was hard-wired to a bridge on the router side. and
>>>>>>> technically you could see it as a separate device in the router configs if
>>>>>>> you rooted around enough. but the modem side was just a modem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:03 AM Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss <
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cox modems *are* bridges first and foremost typically, unless you
>>>>>>>> get a bundled router/modem, which is only what CenturyLink sells. If you
>>>>>>>> got a "router/modem" combo, just buy a modem-only device for a dumb bridge
>>>>>>>> and simple ethernet for a public ip. I recommend staying with an arris
>>>>>>>> cable modem, originally motorola, they basically developed cable modem
>>>>>>>> docsis, and are always the best.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I moved from Cox to CL when Cox started adding a usage cap, and
>>>>>>>> that was new to me to get my Fortinet firewall online with CL and their DSL
>>>>>>>> doing PPPOE. I've seen the router/cable modem combo boxes later, but never
>>>>>>>> owned one as I always have my own router/firewall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -mb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:36 AM Donald Mac McCarthy <
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Will Cox allow for a bridge/virtual bridge mode? Xfinity does,
>>>>>>>>> which allows you to put in a firewall, and use the modem only as a gateway,
>>>>>>>>> therefore preventing a double NAT situation. Never lived in a Cox area
>>>>>>>>> before, and currently ride CL fiber.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mac
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss wrote on 5/3/20 2:00 PM:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cox modems will learn and allow only 1 mac at a time (unless
>>>>>>>>> business is set to allow more, but not on residential). If switching out
>>>>>>>>> firewalls, I 99% of time reboot the modem first and foremost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -mb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:08 PM Snyder, Alexander J via
>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I got it working.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I assigned the SFP+ port as my LAN and assigned it the
>>>>>>>>>> 10.x.x.x/16 network. Then I had to call COX and list the WAN Mac address
>>>>>>>>>> with them. Upon doing so I was able to reach external sites, and all
>>>>>>>>>> downstream devices started coming alive!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the suggestions and help!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Galaxy S10+
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 3, 2020, 03:14 Herminio Hernandez, Jr. via
>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you login to the FW via the LAN interface? Can you ping
>>>>>>>>>>> the FW LAN interface? Check the routing and NAT policy on the FW. All
>>>>>>>>>>> outbound traffic should NAT to the FW WAN interface and there should be a
>>>>>>>>>>> default (0.0.0.0/0) route to the internet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 7:27 PM Seabass via PLUG-discuss <
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm with Mac, I think it is not the firewall, but if you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ability to plug it into a display with a keyboard, you can use that for
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration and modify a different device at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Makes it easier to troubleshoot by giving you the ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>> configure your pfSense ports at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Message: 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 09:04:35 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Donald Mac McCarthy <>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Snyder, Alexander J via PLUG-discuss"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: pfSense + Ubiquity
>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can help - but I am unavailable to do so until tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Make sure there are not any thing other than default VLANs on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces to start with. Ubiquiti is famous for not havinght
>>>>>>>>>>>> eSFP+
>>>>>>>>>>>> ports active in the default configuration, and I believe the
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch has
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the ports to shutdown on default config as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is the switch not passing traffic through - no the
>>>>>>>>>>>> firewall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mac
>>>>>>>>>>>> Snyder, Alexander J via PLUG-discuss wrote on 5/2/20 8:53 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Does anyone out there have experience with pfSence and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquity switches?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I have zero with either but that didn't stop me from buying
>>>>>>>>>>>> both ....
>>>>>>>>>>>> > how hard could it be?! LOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I bought a Negate XG-1537-1U. I bought a Unifi Pro 24 PoE
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I can configure the FW immediately after
>>>>>>>>>>>> > firstboot/restore-default-configs, but only if i set the LAN
>>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>> > to be the cable that goes directly to my laptop. That's
>>>>>>>>>>>> great, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> > that does shit for the downstream switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I have a 10GB SFP+ Port that I want to configure as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> downstream
>>>>>>>>>>>> > port to ubiquity, but any configuration other than mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>> > fails .... and I'm now on my 12th "Reset To Factory Defaults"
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... any
>>>>>>>>>>>> > help on this would be greatly appreciated!
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Sent from my Galaxy S10+
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> > PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>>>>>> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Donald "Mac" McCarthy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Director, Field Operations
>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source Context
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.602.584.4445
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://oscontext.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: <
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20200502/aeab14b4/attachment-0001.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> End of PLUG-discuss Digest, Vol 179, Issue 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> ********************************************
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Donald "Mac" McCarthy
>>>>>>>>> Director, Field Operations
>>>>>>>>> Open Source Context
>>>>>>>>> +1.602.584.4445
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://oscontext.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you
>>>>>>> from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Donald "Mac" McCarthy
>>>>>> Director, Field Operations
>>>>>> Open Source Context
>>>>>> +1.602.584.4445
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://oscontext.com
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from
> rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button.
>
> Stephen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list -
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
This message was posted to the following mailing lists:
Plug Discuss
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages		<-Re: port on filezillaRe: PfSense + ubiquity->
Some Mailing List Archive administrated by UnconfiguredLurker (version 2.3)