Re: Turn the power plug around

[Kevin Tillery via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Amusingly, I have a computer which, after an encounter with a severely 
mis-wired building and blowing a fuse, suffered some kind of PSU damage 
which means it now only works when plugged in one way.

The symptom is very confusing too - it hangs during boot with the POST 
diagnostic lights showing a CPU error. Turn the plug around, press the 
button again, and it boots.


On 03/12/2025 02:39, Barry Shein via NANOG wrote:
> Back in the day it was the unplugged dial-up modem.
>
> The gentle method support would use is tell them that sometimes the
> power plug to the wall needed to be turned around to work properly.
>
> Amazing how many customers came right back to the phone saying "Yup!
> that was it!" (yeah...sure.)
>
> On December 2, 2025 at 13:53 nanog () lists nanog org (Shane Ronan via NANOG) wrote:
>   > Wouldn't it make sense to then play a message for those users before they
>   > even connect to a representative to check the power to their equipment?
>   >
>   > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:41 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
>   > wrote:
>   >
>   > > Because we would get things like "why is my IP address super long, I can't
>   > > play Xbox now" or "my computer says it is IPv6 enabled, does that mean
>   > > someone hacked me?"
>   > >
>   > > I manage the entire thing and let me give you an example of a ticket from
>   > > this morning.  The customer called in and said they unplugged some things
>   > > and moved stuff around the house.  Since then their internet/phone
>   > > (landline) has not been working.  CSR asked if device was plugged in to
>   > > power.  It was not.  Customer plugged it in.
>   > >
>   > > You have to realize the people we're dealing with on this topic.  We get
>   > > the calls for anything internet related at all because people don't use
>   > > their brain to connect the situation of unplugging the internet company's
>   > > box from power and it not working.  I wrote a script that takes all
>   > > incoming calls and scans the customer's device to see if it has dying gasp
>   > > and then posts to Slack.  That post comes up for 20% of our calls - people
>   > > without power or unplugging it.
>   > >
>   > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:35 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > > I did.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1
>   > > customer
>   > > >> support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing their
>   > > >> subnets.  Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on the
>   > > >> router.
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Not picking on you specifically here, but it's generally funny to hear
>   > > > "none of my users ask for V6" , then "my support will be run over with V6
>   > > > setup questions". :)
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 3:09 PM Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com
>   > > >
>   > > > wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > >> >Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the
>   > > >> implementation issues.
>   > > >>
>   > > >> I did.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1
>   > > >> customer support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing
>   > > >> their subnets.  Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on
>   > > the
>   > > >> router.
>   > > >>
>   > > >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:48 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>   > > >>
>   > > >>> That's absolutely not true.  Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6
>   > > >>>> issues.  Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6.
>   > > Absolutely
>   > > >>>> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future).
>   > > >>>
>   > > >>>
>   > > >>> Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the
>   > > >>> implementation issues.
>   > > >>>
>   > > >>> I addressed (separately) the support aspects. Are there cases where v6
>   > > >>> specifically causes customer issues? Yes. Are those cases exceedingly
>   > > rare
>   > > >>> these days? Yes. While things happen, the vast majority of user facing
>   > > >>> stuff these days follows Happy Eyeballs pretty good, and Just Works
>   > > when
>   > > >>> you have both 4 and 6 available.
>   > > >>>
>   > > >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:28 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG <
>   > > >>> nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>   > > >>>
>   > > >>>> >Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but once
>   > > >>>> those
>   > > >>>> are done, they're done.
>   > > >>>>
>   > > >>>> That's absolutely not true.  Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6
>   > > >>>> issues.  Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6.
>   > > Absolutely
>   > > >>>> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future).
>   > > >>>>
>   > > >>>> >What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days,
>   > > >>>> because
>   > > >>>> it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things are
>   > > >>>> IPv6
>   > > >>>> these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9
>   > > >>>> but
>   > > >>>> who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either
>   > > these
>   > > >>>> days?
>   > > >>>>
>   > > >>>> Little websites named after a forest and an auction website for old
>   > > junk
>   > > >>>> (Amazon and Ebay).
>   > > >>>>
>   > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jared Mauch via NANOG <
>   > > >>>> nanog () lists nanog org>
>   > > >>>> wrote:
>   > > >>>>
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <
>   > > >>>> nanog () lists nanog org>
>   > > >>>> > wrote:
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > >>
>   > > >>>> > >>> this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints
>   > > >>>> that get
>   > > >>>> > >> discussed ad nauseam for the last however many years.
>   > > >>>> > >>
>   > > >>>> > >> I'm not sure if you just don't see it or you're being funny.
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > > It's a correct statement.
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > > "IPv6 doesn't work" : Google's stats show that just shy of 50% of
>   > > >>>> all
>   > > >>>> > their
>   > > >>>> > > traffic is native V6. Most of the largest CDNs will give you
>   > > similar
>   > > >>>> > > answers. Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement
>   > > it,
>   > > >>>> but
>   > > >>>> > > once those are done, they're done.
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > > "My customers don't ask for it." : Customers don't ask for IPv4.
>   > > >>>> They
>   > > >>>> > don't
>   > > >>>> > > ask for NAT/CGNAT either. But you do those things I'm sure,
>   > > because
>   > > >>>> as
>   > > >>>> > you
>   > > >>>> > > said, they just want things to work.
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > > The answer is really money. You made a business decision not to
>   > > >>>> incur the
>   > > >>>> > > hardware/software/support costs to implement V6 for your
>   > > customers.
>   > > >>>> > That's
>   > > >>>> > > fine, no shame in that. Maybe that will never be a problem for
>   > > you,
>   > > >>>> > maybe
>   > > >>>> > > someday it will and it will cost you. Who knows.
>   > > >>>> > >
>   > > >>>> > > But just be honest and call it what it is, instead of half baked
>   > > >>>> > statements
>   > > >>>> > > that have been repeated for decades.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > Exactly.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > Talking to friends at companies that do social networking stuff
>   > > pretty
>   > > >>>> > much all their traffic (over 90%) is from mobile devices, and when I
>   > > >>>> look
>   > > >>>> > at the big 3 mobile networks in the US they all do IPv6.  Their
>   > > MVNO’s
>   > > >>>> > might vary, but the main networks do IPv6.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > I find myself having to tether off their networks when I’m on IPv4
>   > > >>>> only
>   > > >>>> > networks to access things like my hypervisors and other assets that
>   > > >>>> are
>   > > >>>> > IPv6-only because they have superior networking these days.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > If you are doing IPv4-only, you are only harming yourself long-term.
>   > > >>>> The
>   > > >>>> > solutions are there for all the things you think you will encounter.
>   > > >>>> For
>   > > >>>> > the most part it’s 96 more bits, no magic.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > Yes there are a few nuances to be aware of, like proxy-arp saves a
>   > > >>>> lot of
>   > > >>>> > people when they do kinky things in IPv4 and proxy-NDP is there, but
>   > > >>>> not in
>   > > >>>> > the same way on many platforms.  One of the last big hurdles out
>   > > >>>> there was
>   > > >>>> > IPv6 support for VTEP in FRR in my mind and that gap was recently
>   > > >>>> closed.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > I also happen to think that Apple got it wrong when they rolled
>   > > >>>> private
>   > > >>>> > relay out, they kept the inbound tunnel protocol to outbound proxy
>   > > >>>> behavior
>   > > >>>> > on the same address family when they could have upgraded it on the
>   > > >>>> outbound
>   > > >>>> > side to IPv6 which would have closed the gap even more.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days,
>   > > >>>> because
>   > > >>>> > it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things
>   > > are
>   > > >>>> IPv6
>   > > >>>> > these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than
>   > > 9.9.9.9
>   > > >>>> but
>   > > >>>> > who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either
>   > > >>>> these
>   > > >>>> > days?
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > Do you need a ton of IPv4 space?  Not really, but if you’re a cable
>   > > >>>> > company like RCN, yeah you’re not doing any upgrades, but if you are
>   > > >>>> > leaving assets on IPv4 just because you are leaving them on IPv4,
>   > > >>>> then at
>   > > >>>> > some point you are just wasting money.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > Send it to me and Tom so we can buy more hockey tickets.
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> > - Jared
>   > > >>>> > _______________________________________________
>   > > >>>> > NANOG mailing list
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>> >
>   > > >>>>
>   > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NMBYWMNZ7ROM6WMGFJ7IAYLKPFQG3BUO/
>   > > >>>> _______________________________________________
>   > > >>>> NANOG mailing list
>   > > >>>>
>   > > >>>>
>   > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/5M7ANDNUNQRIODBM5B6IGSH3P4XPSBYJ/
>   > > >>>
>   > > >>>
>   > > _______________________________________________
>   > > NANOG mailing list
>   > >
>   > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/JW5R7VO75I5RN4B4H2F4GF7NBMXRHH7E/
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > NANOG mailing list
>   > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/UUXBX5FXSEH6UURSXON5A4S4QKXQB5LL/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/KBAHDPQSDEFEY434IIXNPN56DQQNHYMI/