From sean at donelan.com Fri Apr 18 07:03:56 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (sean) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] Fw: Sexy Message-ID: <200804181203.AQC10750@chopin.merit.edu> WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] Attachments00.HQX, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted -------------- next part -------------- VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] Attachments00.HQX. The infected attachment has been deleted. From vt at phear.org Fri Apr 18 07:22:56 2008 From: vt at phear.org (Vassili Tchersky) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:22:56 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] Postmaster @ vtext.com (or what are best practice to send SMS these days) In-Reply-To: <018501c89fe6$851ddb40$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> References: <48063098.2050500@everydns.net> <018501c89fe6$851ddb40$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> Message-ID: <31566c420804180522x2e02a065s549030f80a250a38@mail.gmail.com> On 16/04/2008, Randy Epstein wrote: > Get a pager! :) SMS is just not as reliable. If I'm not mistaken, messages for one-way pagers are broadcasted from every transmitter in the pager's compagny service area. Couldn't this be a security issue ? -- Vassili Tchersky From bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com Fri Apr 18 08:40:36 2008 From: bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:40:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] Postmaster @ vtext.com (or what are best practice to send SMS these days) Message-ID: <200804181340.m3IDeaNj026972@mail.r-bonomi.com> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Ulevitch said: > > > What else are operators doing to get the pages out when things go wonky? > > I added asterisk and a cheap X100P card to my Nagios setup. Now I > can get a voice call if things are really bad. > > I started to install some text-to-speech tools also, but got depressed > by all the additional ports that were coming along for the ride. > So for now it just plays a prerecorded message: "go check nagios!" It's relatively trivial to add a collection of other canned phrases and have the outgoing message software play the appropriate one. From kevin.hansen at thomson.com Fri Apr 18 10:37:41 2008 From: kevin.hansen at thomson.com (Kevin Hansen) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:37:41 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] Message-ID: -KJH +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin J. Hansen Director Data Center Architecture Thomson Reuters kevin.hansen at thomsonreuters.com 651-687-8466 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From sean at donelan.com Fri Apr 18 11:00:01 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (sean) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] (no subject) Message-ID: <200804181600.AQC60874@chopin.merit.edu> WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] Attachments001.BHX, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted -------------- next part -------------- VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] Attachments001.BHX. The infected attachment has been deleted. From kris at fisix.net Fri Apr 18 11:58:45 2008 From: kris at fisix.net (FISIX) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:58:45 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] Bandwidth issues in the Sprint network In-Reply-To: <20080418041035.GA1109990@hiwaay.net> References: <200804071506.34371.braaen@zcorum.com> <200804171700.27066.braaen@zcorum.com> <013801c8a102$7e3aac00$046f09cb@ltdbeast> <20080418041035.GA1109990@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <4808D345.60805@fisix.net> Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Lincoln Dale said: > >> even with tuned TCP window sizes, make sure you don't have TCP syncookies >> enabled on either endpoint. >> > > IIRC Linux (at least) syncookies only come into play when you are being > syn-flooded (i.e. when the kernel has to start dropping syns). Having > them enabled at other times has no impact, so there's rarely (if ever) a > reason to disable them. > > whats up with sprint today? http://www.internetpulse.net/ seems like they keep having issues. From sean at donelan.com Fri Apr 18 12:14:17 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (sean) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] (no subject) Message-ID: <200804181714.AQC75717@chopin.merit.edu> WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] Attachments00.HQX, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted -------------- next part -------------- VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] Attachments00.HQX. The infected attachment has been deleted. From sean at donelan.com Fri Apr 18 13:40:32 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (sean) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] Word file Message-ID: <200804181840.AQC92298@chopin.merit.edu> WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] New_Document_file.pif, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted -------------- next part -------------- Please see the file. -------------- next part -------------- VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] New_Document_file.pif. The infected attachment has been deleted. From cscora at apnic.net Fri Apr 18 13:06:54 2008 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:06:54 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Nanog] Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <200804181806.m3II6s87024094@thyme.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 19 Apr, 2008 Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 253162 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 126760 Deaggregation factor: 2.00 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 123363 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 27936 Prefixes per ASN: 9.06 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 24339 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11339 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3597 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 82 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 Max AS path length visible: 19 Max AS path prepend of ASN (39375) 13 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 25206 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1878 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 44 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 9 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 817 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1863527072 Equivalent to 111 /8s, 19 /16s and 42 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 50.3 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 61.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 81.4 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 71.6 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 121228 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 42770 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 13580 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.15 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 55042 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 23982 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1919 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 28.68 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 552 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 351 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 343577696 Equivalent to 20 /8s, 122 /16s and 148 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 78.8 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079 APNIC Address Blocks 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 107494 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 59206 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.82 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 86580 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 34280 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 11728 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.38 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 4573 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1051 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.4 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 362513664 Equivalent to 21 /8s, 155 /16s and 133 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 74.5 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 173/8, 174/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 54327 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 33347 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.63 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 49539 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 33168 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 11204 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 4.42 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5857 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1705 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 353545728 Equivalent to 21 /8s, 18 /16s and 174 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 81.0 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 19668 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4920 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.00 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 18046 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 9732 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 893 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.21 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 279 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 153 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 50580736 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 3 /16s and 205 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 50.2 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 3696 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 1150 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.21 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 4073 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1828 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 235 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.33 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 78 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 43 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 15 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 11336192 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 172 /16s and 250 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 33.8 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4755 1632 387 89 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 9583 1166 99 211 Sify Limited 9498 1162 550 61 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 17488 1016 69 78 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 4134 856 12647 320 CHINANET-BACKBONE 4766 851 6006 344 Korea Telecom (KIX) 18101 681 132 54 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 9829 598 450 12 BSNL National Internet Backbo 1221 544 1918 418 Telstra Pty Ltd 4812 544 980 73 China Telecom (Shanghai) Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4323 1428 1030 377 Time Warner Telecom 7018 1407 5978 1006 AT&T WorldNet Services 2386 1394 642 862 AT&T Data Communications Serv 11492 1214 146 45 Cable One 7011 1094 318 621 Citizens Utilities 18566 1043 296 10 Covad Communications 1785 1011 511 107 AppliedTheory Corporation 6197 984 597 507 BellSouth Network Solutions, 174 967 6835 801 Cogent Communications 20115 922 874 512 Charter Communications Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3292 406 1787 368 TDC Tele Danmark 8452 356 188 7 TEDATA 9198 339 74 9 Kazakhtelecom Data Network Ad 3301 338 1459 307 TeliaNet Sweden 3320 327 7045 271 Deutsche Telekom AG 8866 293 78 24 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 8551 282 269 37 Bezeq International 3215 279 2679 89 France Telecom Transpac 5462 275 666 26 Telewest Broadband 6746 267 128 244 Dynamic Network Technologies, Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 1190 2433 221 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 11830 571 299 9 Instituto Costarricense de El 22047 558 270 14 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 7303 448 220 59 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 16814 426 27 10 NSS, S.A. 11172 415 117 70 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 6471 413 85 46 ENTEL CHILE S.A. 10620 403 105 52 TVCABLE BOGOTA 14117 384 25 15 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 20299 300 36 31 NEWCOM AMERICAS Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 463 61 27 LINKdotNET AS number 3741 289 853 223 The Internet Solution 20858 217 34 3 EgyNet 2018 187 222 91 Tertiary Education Network 6713 143 135 11 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 33783 134 10 13 EEPAD TISP TELECOM & INTERNET 5536 121 8 16 Internet Egypt Network 29571 119 13 8 Ci Telecom Autonomous system 5713 105 507 83 Telkom SA Ltd 33776 99 6 7 Starcomms Nigeria Limited Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 2838 3020 115 bellsouth.net, inc. 23577 1640 34 701 Korea Telecom (ATM-MPLS) 4755 1632 387 89 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 4323 1428 1030 377 Time Warner Telecom 7018 1407 5978 1006 AT&T WorldNet Services 2386 1394 642 862 AT&T Data Communications Serv 11492 1214 146 45 Cable One 8151 1190 2433 221 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 9583 1166 99 211 Sify Limited 9498 1162 550 61 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4755 1632 1543 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 11492 1214 1169 Cable One 9498 1162 1101 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 4323 1428 1051 Time Warner Telecom 18566 1043 1033 Covad Communications 8151 1190 969 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 9583 1166 955 Sify Limited 17676 1016 951 Softbank BB Corp. 23577 1640 939 Korea Telecom (ATM-MPLS) 17488 1016 938 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 14780 UNALLOCATED 4.79.181.0/24 10310 Yahoo! 12180 UNALLOCATED 4.79.248.0/24 1239 Sprint 12180 UNALLOCATED 8.10.16.0/24 3549 Global Crossing 12180 UNALLOCATED 8.10.58.0/23 3549 Global Crossing 14779 UNALLOCATED 8.12.144.0/24 10310 Yahoo! 16927 UNALLOCATED 12.0.252.0/23 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 22492 UNALLOCATED 12.2.46.0/24 1239 Sprint 15132 UNALLOCATED 12.9.150.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, 32567 UNALLOCATED 12.14.170.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 13632 UNALLOCATED 12.20.55.0/24 6517 Yipes Communications Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 24.51.159.0/24 7843 Adelphia Corp. 24.54.224.0/19 20001 HoldCo LLC - Road Runner 24.75.160.0/19 7843 Adelphia Corp. 24.75.192.0/18 7843 Adelphia Corp. 24.142.40.0/21 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 24.142.160.0/19 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.0.0/17 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.128.0/18 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 62.61.220.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 63.140.213.0/24 22555 Universal Talkware Corporatio Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:19 /9:9 /10:16 /11:42 /12:138 /13:279 /14:507 /15:1008 /16:9837 /17:4360 /18:7294 /19:15314 /20:17741 /21:16990 /22:21579 /23:22563 /24:133179 /25:766 /26:908 /27:494 /28:101 /29:9 /30:1 /31:0 /32:8 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 11492 1200 1214 Cable One 2386 1092 1394 AT&T Data Communications Serv 18566 1024 1043 Covad Communications 9583 1004 1166 Sify Limited 7011 977 1094 Citizens Utilities 4755 970 1632 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 6478 910 911 AT&T Worldnet Services 6389 882 2838 bellsouth.net, inc. 9498 836 1162 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 17488 828 1016 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data/sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:9 8:105 12:2004 13:1 15:20 16:3 17:6 18:13 20:35 24:1061 25:1 32:61 33:4 38:415 40:94 41:633 44:2 47:8 52:3 55:3 56:3 57:22 58:517 59:452 60:410 61:980 62:1080 63:1958 64:3460 65:2395 66:3633 67:1154 68:672 69:2145 70:608 71:125 72:1688 73:6 74:942 75:225 76:291 77:628 78:578 79:146 80:889 81:851 82:590 83:364 84:561 85:1002 86:383 87:643 88:323 89:1259 90:11 91:1192 92:274 93:251 96:23 97:14 98:138 99:3 116:603 117:285 118:113 119:388 120:13 121:517 122:745 123:314 124:838 125:1111 128:318 129:199 130:126 131:397 132:65 133:9 134:180 135:32 136:220 137:111 138:147 139:61 140:489 141:96 142:430 143:279 144:346 145:50 146:346 147:142 148:501 149:181 150:128 151:176 152:142 153:121 154:10 155:265 156:175 157:264 158:168 159:221 160:253 161:110 162:209 163:196 164:510 165:445 166:299 167:316 168:606 169:127 170:427 171:28 172:2 189:162 190:1779 192:5769 193:4090 194:3251 195:2393 196:1037 198:3741 199:3236 200:5613 201:1401 202:7566 203:7808 204:3996 205:2124 206:2395 207:2744 208:3261 209:3472 210:2542 211:1043 212:1344 213:1649 214:449 215:48 216:4281 217:1218 218:353 219:407 220:1080 221:396 222:311 End of report From sean at donelan.com Fri Apr 18 15:08:31 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (sean) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] Fwd: Photo Message-ID: <200804182008.AQD07945@chopin.merit.edu> WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted -------------- next part -------------- VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted. From patrick at ianai.net Fri Apr 18 15:11:33 2008 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Fwd: Photo In-Reply-To: <200804182008.AQD07945@chopin.merit.edu> References: <200804182008.AQD07945@chopin.merit.edu> Message-ID: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:08 PM, sean wrote: > WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus > scanner: > > Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. > Action taken: deleted > VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] > Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted. Impressive. I didn't know the new server had a virus scanner on it. Perhaps we should just delete these instead of forwarding them to the list? I'm also impressed that Sean moved to India: Received: from ibm-ii (121.247.233-225.kol-bb-dynamic.vsnl.net.in [121.247.233.225] (may be forged)) by chopin.merit.edu (MOS 3.8.2-GA) with SMTP id AQD07945; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:08:32 -0400 (EDT) :) -- TTFN, patrick From darkuncle at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 15:15:16 2008 From: darkuncle at gmail.com (Scott Francis) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:15:16 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... -- darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key From etrdina at claytonkendall.com Fri Apr 18 15:17:40 2008 From: etrdina at claytonkendall.com (Edward A. Trdina III) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo In-Reply-To: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> Message-ID: <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> The viruses, or the virus emails? -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick at ianai.net] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:12 PM To: nanog at merit.edu Subject: Re: [Nanog] Fwd: Photo On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:08 PM, sean wrote: > WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus > scanner: > > Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. > Action taken: deleted > VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] > Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted. Impressive. I didn't know the new server had a virus scanner on it. Perhaps we should just delete these instead of forwarding them to the list? I'm also impressed that Sean moved to India: Received: from ibm-ii (121.247.233-225.kol-bb-dynamic.vsnl.net.in [121.247.233.225] (may be forged)) by chopin.merit.edu (MOS 3.8.2-GA) with SMTP id AQD07945; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:08:32 -0400 (EDT) :) -- TTFN, patrick _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From black at csulb.edu Fri Apr 18 15:22:49 2008 From: black at csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:49 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't been following the list for a few months. They also changed the message headers and they no longer include the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 +0000 nanog-request at nanog.org wrote: > Welcome to the NANOG at nanog.org mailing list! > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > nanog at nanog.org > > General information about the mailing list is at: [...snip] From mliotta at r337.com Fri Apr 18 15:23:06 2008 From: mliotta at r337.com (Matt Liotta) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:23:06 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] 1275k st. DC Message-ID: <7F9852C9-43D1-4F96-A1FE-C2E502C630DC@r337.com> Anyone else seeing issues there? -Matt From Blake.Gillman at cox.com Fri Apr 18 15:25:04 2008 From: Blake.Gillman at cox.com (Blake.Gillman at cox.com) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:25:04 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] unsubscribe Message-ID: <1E989F65B905E247BE745FAC9FD09FB605075553@CARZ0MS02.corp.cox.com> unsubscribe Cox Communications, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- Blake Gillman Sr. IP Architect Office: 623.328.2994 Mobile: 602.694.2085 1550 West Deer Valley Road Phoenix, AZ 85027 From smooge at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 15:27:07 2008 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:27:07 -0600 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until it became too late. ) > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were Maybe he has been trading on "the Internet is going to die" since 1981 and his shorts on the Internet are coming due in 2010? I mean this sounds as much like all the other pump and dump things I have read :). > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From megaera at ruraltel.net Fri Apr 18 15:31:11 2008 From: megaera at ruraltel.net (Megaera) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:31:11 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo In-Reply-To: <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> References: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> Message-ID: I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been dumped too. Any ideas? -- God grant me the senility to forget the people that I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones that I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. From billn at billn.net Fri Apr 18 15:32:58 2008 From: billn at billn.net (Bill Nash) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:32:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged lobbying approaches, reminiscent of the 'fiber to the home' tax break series that hit a handful of years back that got us pretty much nothing. Given trivial tech milestones like these: http://www.thelocal.se/7869/20070712/ (2007) http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=82315 (2005) I call bullshit. Besides, by 2010 we'll be staring down a global economy collapse and people will be too busy trying to find food to get online and download movies. - billn On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > From tme at multicasttech.com Fri Apr 18 15:38:28 2008 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:38:28 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <70DF65BD-5394-452B-B7BB-BF77D66BDC7E@multicasttech.com> On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet Maybe if "typical household" is defined as "close relatives of Peter Lothberg." Either that, or he meant 30 instead of 3. Regards Marshall > > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From bill at bfccomputing.com Fri Apr 18 15:38:54 2008 From: bill at bfccomputing.com (Bill McGonigle) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:38:54 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81F6283B-E294-4E2F-BC6C-98958922FB28@bfccomputing.com> On Apr 18, 2008, at 16:22, Matthew Black wrote: > They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu This seems to work (for procmail): :0: * ^List-Id:.*nanog\.nanog\.org .Mailing\ Lists.nanog/ I can't complain about the list moving to nanog.org, it seems quite appropriate. -Bill ----- Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 bill at bfccomputing.com Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/ Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf From patrick at ianai.net Fri Apr 18 15:40:19 2008 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:40:19 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. 40 Gbps? Does anyone think the Internet has fewer than twenty 40 Gbps links' worth of traffic? I know individual networks that have more traffic. Could we get 100 Gbps to the home by 2010? Hell, we're having trouble getting 100 Gbps to the CORE by 2010 thanx to companies like Sun forcing 40 Gbps ethernet down the IEEE's throat. Not that 100 Gbps would be enough anyway to make his statement true. > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? His answers are so far off, they're not even wrong. Basis? You don't need a basis for such blatantly and objectively false information that even the most newbie neophyte laughs their ass off while reading it. Good thing C|Net asked "vice president of legislative affairs" about traffic statistics. Or maybe they didn't ask, but they sure listened. Perhaps they should ask the Network Architect about the legislative implications around NN laws. Actually, they would probably get more useful answers than asking a lawyer about bandwidth. C|Net-- I'd say the same about at&t, but .... -- TTFN, patrick > Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From david at davidcoulson.net Fri Apr 18 15:45:08 2008 From: david at davidcoulson.net (David Coulson) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48090854.1030005@davidcoulson.net> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is > supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% > of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until > it became too late. ) This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC) transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with 'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming. David From alex at pilosoft.com Fri Apr 18 15:48:46 2008 From: alex at pilosoft.com (Alex Pilosov) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Megaera wrote: > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list > for years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've > subscribed to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list > settings had been dumped too. Yes, there was an email prior regarding list transition from Majordomo to mailman. If you missed the email, it is here: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg07543.html Sorry about virus notices. Merit needs to change mailman (or MTA) settings to drop virus-infected emails instead of stripping/bouncing/whatever. If you'd like to discuss mailing list operations, you should do it on nanog-futures at nanog.org, not here. Thanks -alex [MLC chair] From jmoser at diamondgate.net Fri Apr 18 15:49:10 2008 From: jmoser at diamondgate.net (John Moser) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:49:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo In-Reply-To: References: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> Message-ID: <53141.12.163.65.28.1208551750.squirrel@www.diamondgate.net> > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list > for > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've > subscribed > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had > been > dumped too. > > Any ideas? http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg07543.html See the message from Betty Burke from Thursday April 17th. New server, new list. I'm guessing the virus notifications were accidentally missed during the migration. -John From jeffshultz at wvi.com Fri Apr 18 15:52:08 2008 From: jeffshultz at wvi.com (Jeff Shultz) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:52:08 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <480909F8.2080700@wvi.com> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: >> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html >> >> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious >> (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > > I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is > supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% > of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until > it became too late. ) I'm part of the 60%... since I'm on satellite I believe I don't need to switch... in fact it would cost me more to get service in HD now if I did switch. I suspect there are a lot of me's out there. -- Jeff Shultz From jacob at appelbaum.net Fri Apr 18 15:51:59 2008 From: jacob at appelbaum.net (Jacob Appelbaum) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:51:59 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo In-Reply-To: References: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> Message-ID: <480909EF.3050009@appelbaum.net> Megaera wrote: > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been > dumped too. > This has happened to me as well. I was a digest subscriber and now I'm getting each message. Did someone tamper with the settings or was there an administrative mistake? Regards, Jacob From Marc.Williams at neustar.biz Fri Apr 18 15:56:22 2008 From: Marc.Williams at neustar.biz (Williams, Marc) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:56:22 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to europe? > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Francis [mailto:darkuncle at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:15 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat > dubious (working for a company that produces video for online > distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as > "in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more > traffic than the entire Internet today". Is there some secret > plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical households" in the next > 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate > figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be > generated by any single household regardless of equipment > installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a > liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the > case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims > were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from > ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers > were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were > derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was > all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave > of "reasonable network management" practices that just happen > to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... > -- > darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From ghicks at cadence.com Fri Apr 18 15:57:51 2008 From: ghicks at cadence.com (Gregory Hicks) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes Message-ID: <200804182057.m3IKvphl022861@mailhub.Cadence.COM> > From: Matthew Black > To: NANOG > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:49 -0700 > Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes > > OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't > been following the list for a few months. They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu Try this: X-BeenThere: nanog at nanog.org > > matthew black > network services > california state university, long beach > 1250 bellflower boulevard > long beach, ca 90840-0101 > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 +0000 > nanog-request at nanog.org wrote: > > Welcome to the NANOG at nanog.org mailing list! > > > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > > > nanog at nanog.org > > > > General information about the mailing list is at: > [...snip] > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton From stega at purgatory.org Fri Apr 18 15:57:49 2008 From: stega at purgatory.org (stega (lc boros)) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:57:49 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] List Change [was Re: [OT] Fwd: Photo] In-Reply-To: References: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> Message-ID: <4EB92F79-81AB-446E-A0A5-2C9E9A99EC41@purgatory.org> It was an announced change. List moved to new platform. Check your archives for: Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:05:56 -0400 From: "Betty J. Burke" Subject: List Transistion /lc On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Megaera wrote: > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the > list for > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've > subscribed > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings > had been > dumped too. > > Any ideas? > > > -- > God grant me the senility to forget the people that I never > liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones that I do, > and the eyesight to tell the difference. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From windsor at warthog.com Fri Apr 18 16:03:54 2008 From: windsor at warthog.com (Rob Windsor) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:03:54 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48090CBA.5070209@warthog.com> Matthew Black wrote: > OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't > been following the list for a few months. They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu looks like you can use: X-BeenThere: nanog at nanog.org Rob++ -- | |Internet: windsor at warthog.com __o |Life: Rob at Carrollton.Texas.USA.Earth _`\<,_ | (_)/ (_) |"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." | -- Major General John Sedgwick From becker at proxy.net Fri Apr 18 16:08:27 2008 From: becker at proxy.net (becker at proxy.net) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <239638507-1208552894-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1214298668-@bxe152.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Seems to have forgotten I subscribed to the digest as well. Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:49 To:NANOG Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't been following the list for a few months. They also changed the message headers and they no longer include the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 +0000 nanog-request at nanog.org wrote: > Welcome to the NANOG at nanog.org mailing list! > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > nanog at nanog.org > > General information about the mailing list is at: [...snip] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From ghicks at cadence.com Fri Apr 18 16:27:53 2008 From: ghicks at cadence.com (Gregory Hicks) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo Message-ID: <200804182127.m3ILRrhl001304@mailhub.Cadence.COM> > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:51:59 -0700 > From: Jacob Appelbaum > To: nanog at merit.edu > Subject: Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo > > Megaera wrote: > > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for > > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed > > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been > > dumped too. > > > > This has happened to me as well. I was a digest subscriber and now I'm > getting each message. Did someone tamper with the settings or was there > an administrative mistake? I don't have the message, but, a few days ago, there was a message from Betty that basically said that the list was moving and that we would have to recreate any individual settings... And that would be a good time to set a password. Regards, Gregory Hicks > > Regards, > Jacob > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton From patrick at ianai.net Fri Apr 18 16:33:56 2008 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:33:56 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] List Change [was Re: [OT] Fwd: Photo] In-Reply-To: <4EB92F79-81AB-446E-A0A5-2C9E9A99EC41@purgatory.org> References: <407EDEC9-4407-4806-A5AB-F6414A86E12C@ianai.net> <21D39E119A720E42BA4A11ABF884D769B39B21@Exchange1.CK1.DMN> <4EB92F79-81AB-446E-A0A5-2C9E9A99EC41@purgatory.org> Message-ID: Despite the chatter, I think we should all congratulate Merit on a very smooth and orderly transition to the new server. No, it was not perfect, but given all the possible outcomes, we are definitely in the top quartile. IMHO, of course. -- TTFN, patrick From marc at let.de Fri Apr 18 16:45:12 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:45:12 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <67E8FFB2-CE9F-4D91-8902-9B4F6035C4F8@let.de> > > If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access > network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to > europe? hello, my biggest problem in understanding the ip6 / multicast concept is " if the whole internet were multicast enabled " and there is no unicast stream would?nt this not decrease_the_traffic_to_a_reasonable amount ??!! regards marc - Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- John F. Kennedy, 35th US president Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :marc at kgraff.net blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com/matrix From mikelieman at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 17:06:48 2008 From: mikelieman at gmail.com (Mike Lieman) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43661d390804181506x3760cd98w5d2ace193aca9fa0@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. From mikelieman at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 17:23:44 2008 From: mikelieman at gmail.com (Mike Lieman) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080418222003.43E244501D@ptavv.es.net> References: <43661d390804181506x3760cd98w5d2ace193aca9fa0@mail.gmail.com> <20080418222003.43E244501D@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: <43661d390804181523y7a40208aqcee2bdbc078f5cbe@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 > > From: "Mike Lieman" > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > > > > > > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes > > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in > > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law? From jeffshultz at wvi.com Fri Apr 18 17:44:18 2008 From: jeffshultz at wvi.com (Jeff Shultz) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:44:18 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <43661d390804181523y7a40208aqcee2bdbc078f5cbe@mail.gmail.com> References: <43661d390804181506x3760cd98w5d2ace193aca9fa0@mail.gmail.com> <20080418222003.43E244501D@ptavv.es.net> <43661d390804181523y7a40208aqcee2bdbc078f5cbe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48092442.9020201@wvi.com> Mike Lieman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 >> > From: "Mike Lieman" >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: >> > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html >> > > >> > >> > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes >> > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in >> > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. > > If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in > such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they > could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards > would be ensconced in Law? > Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. -- Jeff Shultz From dr at kyx.net Fri Apr 18 17:57:41 2008 From: dr at kyx.net (Dragos Ruiu) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:57:41 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <48090854.1030005@davidcoulson.net> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> <48090854.1030005@davidcoulson.net> Message-ID: On 18-Apr-08, at 1:45 PM, David Coulson wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is >> supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% >> of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one >> until >> it became too late. ) > This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC) > transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with > 'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using > ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming. Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) Just like the mandated HD broadcasts in top markets by 1997 or else they lose license. cheers, --dr From alex at pilosoft.com Fri Apr 18 17:57:45 2008 From: alex at pilosoft.com (Alex Pilosov) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] [admin] Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <48092442.9020201@wvi.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jeff Shultz wrote: > Mike Lieman wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 > >> > From: "Mike Lieman" > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > >> > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > >> > > > >> > > >> > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes > >> > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in > >> > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. > > > > If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in > > such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they > > could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards > > would be ensconced in Law? > > > > Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. Yes, this is getting very offtopic very fast. Politics, philosophy and legal are explicitly forbidden on the list, and this hits all 3. Could y'all knock it off, please? Please see this for NANOG AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html Off-topic: * Whining as in, "so-and-so are terrible lawbreakers and they owe us". * Network neutrality (this has been discussed to death here) - unless you have something poignant to add and you've read in detail what has been said previously. * Anything political that does not have operational impact. * Anything legal that does not have operational impact. On-topic: * Operational impact of legal/political/financial external constraints. -alex From mike at reachme.com Fri Apr 18 19:05:58 2008 From: mike at reachme.com (Mike Fedyk) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:05:58 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets Message-ID: <022b01c8a1b1$250902d0$cb998647@ws20031> (Crossed Fingers) Cogent's network seems "OK", for now. I've received several responses asking for details on how I would avoid Cogent. It looks like getting a connection to the AT&T network will allow us to serve our customers on their DSLS and use their direct peering to the Time Warner network for our customers with cable Internet. If anyone has any ideas on how this will work, please let me know. For instance, do most networks prefer to keep packets on their network until closest to the end point or might a network just send the traffic through cogent in another part of their network a few hops away? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Fedyk Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:59 PM To: nanog at merit.edu Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets I spoke too soon: Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. adsl-63-194-XXX-XXX.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 0.0% 109 9.2 19.2 8.4 57.9 11.0 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 0.9% 109 8.4 16.7 8.3 45.6 9.6 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 109 8.6 36.3 8.5 256.6 44.2 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 109 10.3 39.4 9.3 209.3 46.2 5. te8-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 108 32.4 34.3 9.3 238.6 45.1 6. vl3491.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 3.7% 108 17.0 23.4 12.9 98.9 13.4 7. te3-4.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 17.6% 108 39.1 28.8 16.4 198.9 22.1 8. vl3805.na21.b002695-2.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 12.0% 108 34.1 27.6 17.0 68.7 11.2 9. PAETEC_Communications_Inc.demarc.cogentco.com 10.2% 108 22.4 35.3 17.0 168.7 27.8 10. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paetec.net 18.5% 108 21.2 34.2 21.0 188.6 20.6 11. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec.net 10.3% 108 35.7 33.9 20.5 232.7 23.9 12. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec.net 13.0% 108 21.0 31.6 20.2 157.9 16.6 13. 74.10.xxx.xxx 11.1% 108 25.7 33.9 25.2 55.2 8.9 14. 74.10.xxx.xxx 15.7% 108 26.7 35.7 25.0 70.8 11.7 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Fedyk Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:15 PM To: Ryan Harden Cc: nanog at merit.edu Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets Thank you, the issue seems to be fixed now at Cogent. From surfer at mauigateway.com Fri Apr 18 19:25:44 2008 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:25:44 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> --- darkuncle at gmail.com wrote: From: "Scott Francis" Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? ---------------------------------------- From: Bill Nash I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged lobbying approaches... ---------------------------------------- Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... "Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned... scott" From david at davidcoulson.net Fri Apr 18 21:21:27 2008 From: david at davidcoulson.net (David Coulson) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:21:27 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090804181327ib00d43fkd23a898c7f5556f6@mail.gmail.com> <48090854.1030005@davidcoulson.net> Message-ID: <48095727.6080009@davidcoulson.net> Dragos Ruiu wrote: > Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) I will let you know next February when my rabbit ears stop working :) From jgreco at ns.sol.net Sat Apr 19 08:01:54 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:01:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <89D27DE3375BB6428DDCC2927489826A013B8FB8@nexus.nexicomgroup.net> from "Paul Stewart" at Apr 17, 2008 08:33:34 PM Message-ID: <200804191301.m3JD1sMK050807@aurora.sol.net> > Same here... frequent packet loss. We had Cogent GigE service for about > 9 months if I recall - more than one major outage per month and packet > loss issues at least once a week. > > You get what you pay for (within reason).... Cogent tends towards being a content network, and has occasional peering issues with other networks who wind up bearing some of the related costs. Internally, their network earns better than average marks, but sometimes there will be strange things that don't seem to make sense, and these may or may not be explained or fixed if you contact Cogent. Externally, we've seen their history of peering problems. We've noticed that there tend to be specific routes where Cogent experiences problems for long periods of time. In the last few years, for example, if packets went through Paris or London to destination ISP's in the associated countries, there tended to be some performance problems. Some of these have cleared up. It would appear to be peering and/or congestion issues. These would typically only affect specific destinations, but often required analysis and workarounds to be implemented. We've not noticed problems with major outages, but that may be because of our location (Ashburn). There seem to be some people who do not experience outages, and others who experience frequent outages. This may be dependent on where in the Cogent network you are. In their original business model, providing business ethernet connections in a metro area, they're a very attractive provider, but I'd guess their overall reliability would feel to be on par with some commercial ISP's, due to occasional peering problems, packet loss, etc. >From a service provider's point of view, in many places in the country, their service is still sufficiently cheap that it could be worth considering as part of a bandwidth mix. Given the availability of automated tools to manage connections susceptible to brownouts (Cisco OER, Avaya/RouteScience, etc), it may be quite attractive and viable to use Cogent in certain environments, but you have to give it some thought. To the original poster, Cogent to AT&T (DSL, etc) has historically been what I'd consider to be "problematic." For years. Filtering out routes that involve both AT&T and Cogent seems to work, though it may be unnecessarily aggressive (and obviously you'd need an alternate carrier with good connectivity to AT&T). ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From sean at donelan.com Sat Apr 19 14:16:19 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> References: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. From jmamodio at gmail.com Sat Apr 19 14:16:38 2008 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:16:38 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <202705b0804191216m400731f8l19968bbbf167b31a@mail.gmail.com> I believe you have to take in account from whom and where some assertions are coming from. The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one "Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies". AFAIK, most of the telecommunication companies and technology providers that conform the core infrastructure of the net are public traded companies, including AT&T. And I concur that even with the dramatic traffic increase due HD media is hard to believe that "20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today" in three years. Perhaps he is transpiring what from a legal point of view AT&T thinks about "Net Neutrality" and his take about public/consortium vs private traffic policying. My .02 From tomb at byrneit.net Sat Apr 19 14:44:08 2008 From: tomb at byrneit.net (Tomas L. Byrnes) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:44:08 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> Message-ID: <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A9F0AC@pascal.zaphodb.org> In my experience, ATT(SBC at that time) hit over its effective capacity (over 50% average utilization, and therefore no redundancy) around 2001. At least for clients I was working with, it was always evident that they didn't have enough capacity in any node to carry the traffic if they had a problem on any single upstream link. They also tended to manually handle routing decisions as opposed to letting the IGP handle it. Given the nature of the beast, I doubt that has changed much, and the anecdotal evidence posted here, most recently related to ATT/Cogent peering, bears that out. So, maybe from ATT's perspective the Internet (meaning their backbone) WILL be saturated by 2010. Since the Internet is a network of independent internets connected to each other, I'd like to know how Cicconi knows what the level of saturation of everyone else's backbone is, or their available dark capacity. I would think those are trade secrets that are closely guarded. It seems what we have here is ATT trying to create public hue and cry, so that the taxpayer will be compelled to pay for their required and overdue network upgrades, instead of themselves; or in order to get further regulatory relief in the name of investing in their infrastructure, as was done in the late '90s. Given their, and other's, track records with the subsidies and regulatory relief they were given in the late '90s, which they used to bankrupt the CLECs, and then passed the increased revenue onto shareholders, rather than investing in infrastructure, I'd be disinclined to give them what they want. The US lags the world in Broadband not because the FCC and PUCs hamstring the ILECs, but because of the disincentive for for-profit common stock companies with government granted monopolies to do much more than the bare minimum capital investment to keep operating costs low and competitors out of the market, while maximizing revenue from existing sunk cost. Would be competitors, on the other hand, have to make massive capital investments that require a long recovery period or high short-term prices, and are easily bankrupted by predatory pricing by the incumbents. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean at donelan.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:16 PM > To: Scott Weeks > Cc: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > > they even had a basis at all)? > > Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone > have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in > context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's > account, echoed in the bloggerdome. > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From hannigan at gmail.com Sat Apr 19 18:18:03 2008 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <022b01c8a1b1$250902d0$cb998647@ws20031> References: <022b01c8a1b1$250902d0$cb998647@ws20031> Message-ID: <2d106eb50804191618h657a0a7dy44cced39638282ab@mail.gmail.com> It is Saturday after all. We generally are all aware of Cogents 'status'. You're not having a unique experience. Martin On 4/18/08, Mike Fedyk wrote: > (Crossed Fingers) > > Cogent's network seems "OK", for now. > > I've received several responses asking for details on how I would avoid > Cogent. It looks like getting a connection to the AT&T network will allow > us to serve our customers on their DSLS and use their direct peering to the > Time Warner network for our customers with cable Internet. > > If anyone has any ideas on how this will work, please let me know. For > instance, do most networks prefer to keep packets on their network until > closest to the end point or might a network just send the traffic through > cogent in another part of their network a few hops away? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Fedyk > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:59 PM > To: nanog at merit.edu > Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets > > > I spoke too soon: > > Host Loss% Snt Last Avg > Best Wrst StDev > 1. adsl-63-194-XXX-XXX.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 0.0% 109 9.2 19.2 > 8.4 57.9 11.0 > 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 0.9% 109 8.4 16.7 > 8.3 45.6 9.6 > 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 109 8.6 36.3 > 8.5 256.6 44.2 > 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 109 10.3 39.4 > 9.3 209.3 46.2 > 5. te8-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 108 32.4 34.3 > 9.3 238.6 45.1 > 6. vl3491.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 3.7% 108 17.0 23.4 > 12.9 98.9 13.4 > 7. te3-4.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 17.6% 108 39.1 28.8 > 16.4 198.9 22.1 > 8. vl3805.na21.b002695-2.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 12.0% 108 34.1 27.6 > 17.0 68.7 11.2 > 9. PAETEC_Communications_Inc.demarc.cogentco.com 10.2% 108 22.4 35.3 > 17.0 168.7 27.8 > 10. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paetec.net 18.5% 108 21.2 34.2 > 21.0 188.6 20.6 > 11. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec.net 10.3% 108 35.7 33.9 > 20.5 232.7 23.9 > 12. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec.net 13.0% 108 21.0 31.6 > 20.2 157.9 16.6 > 13. 74.10.xxx.xxx 11.1% 108 25.7 33.9 > 25.2 55.2 8.9 > 14. 74.10.xxx.xxx 15.7% 108 26.7 35.7 > 25.0 70.8 11.7 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Fedyk > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:15 PM > To: Ryan Harden > Cc: nanog at merit.edu > Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets > > > Thank you, the issue seems to be fixed now at Cogent. > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From mhernand1 at comcast.net Sat Apr 19 18:26:55 2008 From: mhernand1 at comcast.net (manolo) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <2d106eb50804191618h657a0a7dy44cced39638282ab@mail.gmail.com> References: <022b01c8a1b1$250902d0$cb998647@ws20031> <2d106eb50804191618h657a0a7dy44cced39638282ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <480A7FBF.4070306@comcast.net> Some things just never change at cogent.. fought them for months way back when to get me off their infamous 2 bgp peer setup after many an outage due to this setup, they finally put us on a single bgp session but it took forever. Lets just say cogent didn't last long at the company I worked for. You get what you pay for.... Manolo Martin Hannigan wrote: > It is Saturday after all. We generally are all aware of Cogents > 'status'. You're not having a unique experience. > > Martin > > > > On 4/18/08, Mike Fedyk wrote: > >> (Crossed Fingers) >> >> Cogent's network seems "OK", for now. >> >> I've received several responses asking for details on how I would avoid >> Cogent. It looks like getting a connection to the AT&T network will allow >> us to serve our customers on their DSLS and use their direct peering to the >> Time Warner network for our customers with cable Internet. >> >> If anyone has any ideas on how this will work, please let me know. For >> instance, do most networks prefer to keep packets on their network until >> closest to the end point or might a network just send the traffic through >> cogent in another part of their network a few hops away? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Fedyk >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:59 PM >> To: nanog at merit.edu >> Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets >> >> >> I spoke too soon: >> >> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg >> Best Wrst StDev >> 1. adsl-63-194-XXX-XXX.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 0.0% 109 9.2 19.2 >> 8.4 57.9 11.0 >> 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 0.9% 109 8.4 16.7 >> 8.3 45.6 9.6 >> 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 109 8.6 36.3 >> 8.5 256.6 44.2 >> 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 109 10.3 39.4 >> 9.3 209.3 46.2 >> 5. te8-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 108 32.4 34.3 >> 9.3 238.6 45.1 >> 6. vl3491.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 3.7% 108 17.0 23.4 >> 12.9 98.9 13.4 >> 7. te3-4.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 17.6% 108 39.1 28.8 >> 16.4 198.9 22.1 >> 8. vl3805.na21.b002695-2.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 12.0% 108 34.1 27.6 >> 17.0 68.7 11.2 >> 9. PAETEC_Communications_Inc.demarc.cogentco.com 10.2% 108 22.4 35.3 >> 17.0 168.7 27.8 >> 10. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paetec.net 18.5% 108 21.2 34.2 >> 21.0 188.6 20.6 >> 11. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec.net 10.3% 108 35.7 33.9 >> 20.5 232.7 23.9 >> 12. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec.net 13.0% 108 21.0 31.6 >> 20.2 157.9 16.6 >> 13. 74.10.xxx.xxx 11.1% 108 25.7 33.9 >> 25.2 55.2 8.9 >> 14. 74.10.xxx.xxx 15.7% 108 26.7 35.7 >> 25.0 70.8 11.7 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Fedyk >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:15 PM >> To: Ryan Harden >> Cc: nanog at merit.edu >> Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets >> >> >> Thank you, the issue seems to be fixed now at Cogent. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > From rzrweb at covad.net Sat Apr 19 18:35:31 2008 From: rzrweb at covad.net (Raul Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:35:31 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] Anyone here from EXCELLA-COMMUNICATIONS (AS22626) and/or NetONE (AS36607) Message-ID: <480A81C3.9080301@covad.net> Please contact me off-list. The link (or route announcement of 72.35.224.0/20 and 204.9.116.0/22), between the two of you has been flapping for the past four days, leaving our class C (204.9.119.0/24) provided by NetONE unreachable to any network other than Cogent. This link has been unreachable via any non-Cogent route since 4/18/08 @ 21:18:53. #################################################################### From XO... Tracing route to 72.35.230.230 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 192.168.2.1 ***DELETED*** 5 20 ms 22 ms 20 ms 66.238.50.149.ptr.us.xo.net [66.238.50.149] 6 22 ms 19 ms 20 ms p3-0-0.MAR1.LA-CA.us.xo.net [207.88.81.165] 7 22 ms 20 ms 21 ms p5-0-0.rar1.la-ca.us.xo.net [65.106.5.5] 8 23 ms 21 ms 22 ms te-4-1-0.rar3.la-ca.us.xo.net [207.88.12.153] 9 21 ms 22 ms 20 ms 207.88.12.154.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.154] 10 19 ms 20 ms 20 ms po15-3.core01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1 1.241] 11 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms te3-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.1 86] 12 23 ms 19 ms 21 ms vl3493.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6. 229] 13 20 ms 38 ms 20 ms te4-2.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.24. 70] 14 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms netonecolo.demarc.cogentco.com [38.99.208.134] 15 22 ms 21 ms 20 ms 72.35.230.230 Trace complete. #################################################################### From Level 3... Show Level 3 (Los Angeles, CA) Traceroute to 72.35.230.230 1 vlan52.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.62) 4 msec vlan51.csw1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.30) 0 msec vlan52.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.62) 8 msec 2 ae-63-63.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.33) 4 msec ae-73-73.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.37) 4 msec ae-63-63.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.33) 0 msec 3 ae-2.ebr3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.132.9) 8 msec 16 msec 20 msec 4 ae-63-63.csw1.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.226) 8 msec ae-83-83.csw3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.234) 16 msec ae-73-73.csw2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.230) 52 msec 5 ae-62-62.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.209) 8 msec ae-92-92.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.221) 20 msec ae-72-72.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.213) 24 msec 6 ae-3.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.132.58) 36 msec 44 msec 36 msec 7 ae-12-51.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.68.107.7) 40 msec 40 msec ae-12-53.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.68.107.71) 40 msec 8 360-NETWORK.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.53.2.26) 40 msec 40 msec 40 msec 9 66.62.6.65 [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec 10 slc1-core-02.360.net (66.62.3.21) [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 56 msec 52 msec 56 msec 11 slc1-edge-01.360.net (66.62.5.67) [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec 12 66.62.56.38 [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 68 msec 60 msec 60 msec 13 ge-4-2-0-cr-las-excellacom.net (208.78.104.1) [AS22626 {LADYLYNN}] 76 msec 60 msec 60 msec 14 so-3-1-0-cr-lax-excellacom.net (208.78.104.14) [AS22626 {LADYLYNN}] 32 msec 32 msec 28 msec 15 ge-1-4-0-er-lax-excellacom.net (208.78.104.22) [AS22626 {LADYLYNN}] 32 msec 32 msec 28 msec 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * timeout ! ### Show Level 3 (Los Angeles, CA) BGP routes for 204.9.119.1 BGP routing table entry for 204.9.116.0/22 Paths: (2 available, best #1) 19092 22626 36607 AS-path translation: { TA-DAY1 LADYLYNN NETONEGROUP } car2.Denver1 (metric 4390) Origin IGP, metric 500, localpref 100, valid, internal, best Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Denver 19092:100 Originator: car2.Denver1 19092 22626 36607 AS-path translation: { TA-DAY1 LADYLYNN NETONEGROUP } car2.Denver1 (metric 4390) Origin IGP, metric 500, localpref 100, valid, internal Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Denver 19092:100 Originator: car2.Denver1 #################################################################### From Hurricane (AS6939) (lg.he.net) Tracing the route to IP node 72.35.230.230 from 1 to 30 hops 1 8 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10gigabitethernet3-2.core1.pao1.he.net [72.52.92.69] 2 15 ms 15 ms 9 ms 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.lax1.he.net [72.52.92.22] 3 12 ms 15 ms 9 ms laiix.lax1.edge-01.360.net [198.32.146.66] 4 59 ms 51 ms 51 ms lax1-core-01.360.net [66.62.5.129] 5 51 ms 54 ms 51 ms den1-core-02.360.net [66.62.3.42] 6 55 ms 51 ms 50 ms den1-core-01.360.net [66.62.3.34] 7 55 ms 51 ms 51 ms slc1-core-02.360.net [66.62.3.21] 8 55 ms 51 ms 51 ms slc1-edge-01.360.net [66.62.5.3] 9 58 ms 67 ms 58 ms 66.62.56.38 10 61 ms 58 ms 67 ms ge-4-2-0-cr-las-excellacom.net [208.78.104.1] 11 70 ms 73 ms 67 ms so-3-1-0-cr-lax-excellacom.net [208.78.104.14] 12 80 ms 75 ms 74 ms ge-1-4-0-er-lax-excellacom.net [208.78.104.22] 13 * * * ? 14 * * * ? 15 * * * ? 16 * * * ? 17 * * * ? 18 * * * ? 19 * * * ? 20 * * * ? 21 * * * ? 22 * * * ? 23 * * * ? 24 * * * ? 25 * * * ? 26 * * * ? 27 * * * ? 28 * * * ? 29 * * * ? 30 * * * ? IP: Errno(8) Trace Route Failed, no response from target node. Storing [core1.sjc2.he.net trace 72.35.230.230] ### SH BGP 72.35.230.230 Number of BGP Routes matching display condition : 3 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 72.35.224.0/20 198.32.146.66 1 100 0 19092 22626 36607 i * 72.35.224.0/20 213.248.70.37 1 70 0 1299 174 36607 i * 72.35.224.0/20 64.209.94.49 49 70 0 3549 22626 36607 i Last update to IP routing table: 4d11h13m6s, 1 path(s) installed: #################################################################### Info from FixedOrbit: Information for AS36607 NETONEGROUP / NET ONE GROUP, LLC Peers Neighbors ASN Name 174 COGENT-PSI-1 7385 INTEGRATELECOM 21974 EKCTELECOM 22626 EXCELLA-COMMUNICATIONS 32108 Unknown 40187 DMVENTURES Thanks. -Raul R. Network Administrator PCS1 / Datavo From ted at fred.net Sun Apr 20 10:51:44 2008 From: ted at fred.net (Ted Fischer) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:51:44 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> Message-ID: <20080420155150.6AC1D18CE4A@mg6.xecu.net> All, Interesting AT&T project ... the IP (and voice) world according to AT&T, from a New York State of Mind: http://senseable.mit.edu/nyte/index.html Ted At 03:16 PM 4/19/2008, Sean wrote: >On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > > they even had a basis at all)? > >Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube >link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to >only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. > > >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >NANOG at nanog.org >http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From drc at virtualized.org Sun Apr 20 19:44:14 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:44:14 +0900 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <202705b0804191216m400731f8l19968bbbf167b31a@mail.gmail.com> References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> <202705b0804191216m400731f8l19968bbbf167b31a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Not to defend AT&T or the statement regarding capacity, but... On Apr 20, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one "Internet exists, > thanks > to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private > companies". I suspect this was referencing the difference between "public" as in governmentally owned/operated (e.g., most of the highway system in the US) vs. "private" that is non-governmentally owned/operated. The Internet of today does indeed exist because of private efforts. Regards, -drc From surfer at mauigateway.com Sun Apr 20 22:42:48 2008 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:48 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080420204248.5D37B043@resin13.mta.everyone.net> --- sean at donelan.com wrote: From: Sean Donelan On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. ------------------------------------------ For the record, I didn't say the above. I said this: --------------------------------- Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... "Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned... --------------------------------- I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the "Westminster eForum" but can't find anything. www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx scott From fergdawg at netzero.net Sun Apr 20 23:33:51 2008 From: fergdawg at netzero.net (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:33:51 GMT Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Scott Weeks" wrote: >I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the "Westminster >eForum" but can't find anything. > >www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx > For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan Paul's summary of the issues here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080420-analysis-att-fear-mongering-o n-net-capacity-mostly-fud.html ...but take it at face value. $.02, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDBkpq1pz9mNUZTMRAlZ1AKCehJ0/xwgXXA9RBRwuIWfcLGp+9ACfbcJw lsmtPaDeGkV5/PllhBqBV88= =z8LR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ From pauldotwall at gmail.com Sun Apr 20 23:49:45 2008 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul Wall) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A9F0AC@pascal.zaphodb.org> References: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A9F0AC@pascal.zaphodb.org> Message-ID: <620fd17c0804202149h2404dd3bn1f6efb2e27f307f3@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: > In my experience, ATT(SBC at that time) hit over its effective capacity > (over 50% average utilization, and therefore no redundancy) around 2001. Sounds like you're talking about 7018, not 7132 (SBC), and even 7018 is doing okay for capacity now that its high-traffic customers (Comcast) are moving traffic elsewhere. Do you have any specific data to share with the NANOG community supporting of these claims? > At least for clients I was working with, it was always evident that they > didn't have enough capacity in any node to carry the traffic if they had > a problem on any single upstream link. They also tended to manually > handle routing decisions as opposed to letting the IGP handle it. Likewise, I'd be interested in implementation specifics of how a network of AT&T's caliber could implement backbone redundancy and TE with static routing. Any data you could share would be extremely helpful. Paul Wall From randy at psg.com Sun Apr 20 23:55:03 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:55:03 +0900 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <620fd17c0804202149h2404dd3bn1f6efb2e27f307f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A9F0AC@pascal.zaphodb.org> <620fd17c0804202149h2404dd3bn1f6efb2e27f307f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <480C1E27.1070909@psg.com> Paul Wall wrote: >> They also tended to manually handle routing decisions as opposed to >> letting the IGP handle it. > Likewise, I'd be interested in implementation specifics of how a > network of AT&T's caliber could implement backbone redundancy and TE > with static routing. atm-2, circuitzilla's dream machine. randy From pauldotwall at gmail.com Sun Apr 20 23:57:24 2008 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul Wall) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <480A7FBF.4070306@comcast.net> References: <022b01c8a1b1$250902d0$cb998647@ws20031> <2d106eb50804191618h657a0a7dy44cced39638282ab@mail.gmail.com> <480A7FBF.4070306@comcast.net> Message-ID: <620fd17c0804202157q54878a26u3dd948e8925b08d7@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM, manolo wrote: > Some things just never change at cogent.. fought them for months way > back when to get me off their infamous 2 bgp peer setup after many an > outage due to this setup, they finally put us on a single bgp session > but it took forever. Lets just say cogent didn't last long at the > company I worked for. Could you provide additional details on the failure mode experienced resultant from this "two tiered" configuration? How did moving to a "conventional" configuration with a single directly-connected neighbor solve things? What steps were taken during your postmortem and subsequent lab simulations to verify that the outages were not with the customer-side implementation, or perhaps a simple typographical error? Here in H-town, we are deploying a metro/BLEC network comprised of 1000s of small L3 boxes not carrying full tables (Cisco 3560 and similar), and would like very much to learn from these major architectural mistakes, so that we can avoid similar outage scenarios. Any information you could provide would be excellent. > You get what you pay for.... Not passing any judgment on quality, Cogent is more towards the middle of the road for price, these days, on larger commits. Paul Wall From karim.adel at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 01:34:36 2008 From: karim.adel at gmail.com (Kim Onnel) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:34:36 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing Message-ID: Hello, We are going to roll out a network to carry VoIP only, between the P routers, there will be 3xOC3 links. Each site has 2xPEs, PE1 is connected to the P router in the local premises with 10GE and PE2 is connected with 2xOC3s to remote P sites for backup incase local P fails. VoIP is going to be generated by Ericsson Media Gateways and the network designers are suggesting to take traffic in the outgoing direction through the PE1 path and come back through the PE2 path (if that makes sense), so traffic will take a different link for outgoing over incoming. >From your experiences, I am wondering what are future unforeseen pitfalls we can get into? Regards, KO From xmin0s at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 03:01:20 2008 From: xmin0s at gmail.com (Tim Eberhard) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2c52b84e0804210101s6b1ff354jc6a8406d0e2d889e@mail.gmail.com> If there are any firewalls in the path they tend to dislike asymmetric routing(just standing the obvious).. It tends to play hell on the VoIP ALG's and can cause them to eat CPU/Hang/Crash depending on what vendor you have. This assumes that you have a firewall in the network path. Other items that would concern me is link utilization (What if one network link became completely saturated?) >From a application stand point most VoIP systems will do ok with asymmetric routing RTP doesn't *need* to be symmetric but I would have concerns of designing it to be asymmetric out of the gates. Just my 2 copper. Tim Eberhard On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Kim Onnel wrote: > Hello, > > We are going to roll out a network to carry VoIP only, between the P > routers, there will be 3xOC3 links. > > Each site has 2xPEs, PE1 is connected to the P router in the local > premises > with 10GE and PE2 is connected with 2xOC3s to remote P sites for backup > incase local P fails. > > VoIP is going to be generated by Ericsson Media Gateways and the network > designers are suggesting to take traffic in the outgoing direction through > the PE1 path and come back through the PE2 path (if that makes sense), so > traffic will take a different link for outgoing over incoming. > > >From your experiences, I am wondering what are future unforeseen pitfalls > we > can get into? > > Regards, > KO > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From endzer at verizon.net Mon Apr 21 06:54:31 2008 From: endzer at verizon.net (endzer) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:54:31 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8a3a6$761a68c0$624f3a40$@net> Hi, In _Theory_ asymmetric routing _should_ be ok, but that's in theory. I would be concerned as to why they are designing it this way. Have they gave you a good technical reason it has to be this way? I would ask them to justify it. Also, if there are routing problems on one path but not the other, this could cause a scenario where voice is heard but not received, or vice-versa. This situation is much more frustrating to customers as they will try and continue the conversation. Opposed to if it just doesn't work at all because of a routing problem, customer will just use their cell phones. Also, are they implementing any local PSTN access for local calls or failover? That's my experiences. -----Original Message----- From: Kim Onnel [mailto:karim.adel at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:35 AM To: NANOG list Subject: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing Hello, We are going to roll out a network to carry VoIP only, between the P routers, there will be 3xOC3 links. Each site has 2xPEs, PE1 is connected to the P router in the local premises with 10GE and PE2 is connected with 2xOC3s to remote P sites for backup incase local P fails. VoIP is going to be generated by Ericsson Media Gateways and the network designers are suggesting to take traffic in the outgoing direction through the PE1 path and come back through the PE2 path (if that makes sense), so traffic will take a different link for outgoing over incoming. >From your experiences, I am wondering what are future unforeseen pitfalls we can get into? Regards, KO _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From jgreco at ns.sol.net Mon Apr 21 10:41:21 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:41:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <620fd17c0804202157q54878a26u3dd948e8925b08d7@mail.gmail.com> from "Paul Wall" at Apr 21, 2008 12:57:24 AM Message-ID: <200804211541.m3LFfLkM035688@aurora.sol.net> > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM, manolo wrote: > > Some things just never change at cogent.. fought them for months way > > back when to get me off their infamous 2 bgp peer setup after many an > > outage due to this setup, they finally put us on a single bgp session > > but it took forever. Lets just say cogent didn't last long at the > > company I worked for. > > Could you provide additional details on the failure mode experienced > resultant from this "two tiered" configuration? How did moving to a > "conventional" configuration with a single directly-connected neighbor > solve things? For those unfamiliar, Cogent has a system where you set up an EBGP peering with the Cogent router you're connected to, for the purposes of announcing your routes into Cogent. However, these are typically smaller, aggregation class routers, and do not handle full tables - so you don't get your routes from that router. To get a full table FROM Cogent, you need to set up an EBGP multihop session with them, to their nearest full-table router. I believe they actually do all their BGP connections in that manner. This probably makes a lot of sense from an engineering point of view, and could be construed as a BGP competence test. On the other hand, it does have the potential to make things more complex in the event of a failure. I'm not aware of any flaws with such a design that would cause "many an outage," and connections that we've managed for customers with Cogent suggest that it works well. However, if there are problems within the local Cogent node, I could easily see situations where hard-to-identify problems could result. That would seem to me to be an equipment, capacity, or possibly a configuration issue, but not something which discredits the overall strategy. Given that they're providing inexpensive bandwidth, it isn't likely that they'll be sticking large routers everywhere for the customers who want a full table and a simpler BGP configuration. There are many things that you can realistically criticize Cogent for, but I'm not sure the peerA/peerB thing should be one of them. It is certainly more complex, but seems to serve a purpose. > What steps were taken during your postmortem and subsequent lab > simulations to verify that the outages were not with the customer-side > implementation, or perhaps a simple typographical error? > > Here in H-town, we are deploying a metro/BLEC network comprised of > 1000s of small L3 boxes not carrying full tables (Cisco 3560 and > similar), and would like very much to learn from these major > architectural mistakes, so that we can avoid similar outage scenarios. > Any information you could provide would be excellent. Interesting :-) > > You get what you pay for.... > > Not passing any judgment on quality, Cogent is more towards the middle > of the road for price, these days, on larger commits. Or in places like Ashburn. I've been wondering what their future strategy will be. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From david at davidcoulson.net Mon Apr 21 11:02:49 2008 From: david at davidcoulson.net (David Coulson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:02:49 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <200804211541.m3LFfLkM035688@aurora.sol.net> References: <200804211541.m3LFfLkM035688@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: <480CBAA9.5020806@davidcoulson.net> Joe Greco wrote: > For those unfamiliar, Cogent has a system where you set up an EBGP peering > with the Cogent router you're connected to, for the purposes of announcing > your routes into Cogent. However, these are typically smaller, aggregation > class routers, and do not handle full tables - so you don't get your routes > from that router. To get a full table FROM Cogent, you need to set up an > EBGP multihop session with them, to their nearest full-table router. I > believe they actually do all their BGP connections in that manner. Depends on the service you purchase. Fast Ethernet seems to be delivered as eBGP-multihop (the first hop is just a L3 switch), however DS-3 is handled as a single BGP session. I'm not sure if GigE or SONET services are handled as multihop or not. Probably all depends what hardware they have at each POP.... From sean at donelan.com Mon Apr 21 11:18:15 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:18:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: >> I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the "Westminster >> eForum" but can't find anything. >> >> www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx >> > > For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan Paul's summary of the issues > here: The rest of the story? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-traffic-jam_N.htm By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) of bandwidth a month, according to an estimate by the Internet Innovation Alliance in Washington, D.C. At that level, it says, 20 homes would generate more traffic than the entire Internet did in 1995. How many folks remember InternetMCI's lack of capacity in the 1990's when it actually needed to stop installing new Internet connections because InternetMCI didn't have any more capacity for several months. From scott.berkman at reignmaker.net Mon Apr 21 11:29:16 2008 From: scott.berkman at reignmaker.net (Scott Berkman) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing In-Reply-To: <000001c8a3a6$761a68c0$624f3a40$@net> Message-ID: <02ac01c8a3cc$d5d12ad0$330aa8c0@Reignmaker.local> Having the 2 sessions take different paths is fine as long as they both always work as well as each other. If one has more latency or jitter than the other you are likely to run into noticeable echo or other quality issues. What's more important, however, is that each RTP session traverses only 1 path. If you have different packets (or groups of packets) that are part of one session taking different paths, you will run into issues with out of order packets that basically just get dropped. The other thing to think about it what are you actually gaining here? Not redundancy because 1 direction of a call's media is not an acceptable loss (i.e. "in" link goes down but "out" link stays up). Also you aren't gaining much on capacity because modern backhaul links such as 10GE links or OC-X's are symmetrical, so if you only carry traffic in one direction (RTP is UDP so has no ACKs or any reverse direction traffic within the one session) you are actually wasting half of your circuits. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: endzer [mailto:endzer at verizon.net] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:55 AM To: 'Kim Onnel'; 'NANOG list' Subject: Re: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing Hi, In _Theory_ asymmetric routing _should_ be ok, but that's in theory. I would be concerned as to why they are designing it this way. Have they gave you a good technical reason it has to be this way? I would ask them to justify it. Also, if there are routing problems on one path but not the other, this could cause a scenario where voice is heard but not received, or vice-versa. This situation is much more frustrating to customers as they will try and continue the conversation. Opposed to if it just doesn't work at all because of a routing problem, customer will just use their cell phones. Also, are they implementing any local PSTN access for local calls or failover? That's my experiences. -----Original Message----- From: Kim Onnel [mailto:karim.adel at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:35 AM To: NANOG list Subject: [Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing Hello, We are going to roll out a network to carry VoIP only, between the P routers, there will be 3xOC3 links. Each site has 2xPEs, PE1 is connected to the P router in the local premises with 10GE and PE2 is connected with 2xOC3s to remote P sites for backup incase local P fails. VoIP is going to be generated by Ericsson Media Gateways and the network designers are suggesting to take traffic in the outgoing direction through the PE1 path and come back through the PE2 path (if that makes sense), so traffic will take a different link for outgoing over incoming. >From your experiences, I am wondering what are future unforeseen >pitfalls we can get into? Regards, KO _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From fergdawg at netzero.net Mon Apr 21 12:42:44 2008 From: fergdawg at netzero.net (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:42:44 GMT Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080421.104244.29035.1@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan wrote: >The rest of the story? > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadba >nd-traffic-jam_N.htm > > By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly > equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) of bandwidth a > month, according to an estimate by the Internet Innovation Alliance in > Washington, D.C. At that level, it says, 20 homes would generate more > traffic than the entire Internet did in 1995. Hmmm. Who exactly is "The Internet Innovation Alliance"? Unfortunately, their website does not say: http://www.internetinnovation.org/ But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming Internet "exaflood" apocalypse), I would guess they are either compromised of telcos and ISPs or telco lobbyists or both. :-) It would be interesting to know (the rest of the story...) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDNIQq1pz9mNUZTMRAq6fAKCCgypsomFy7NmMbLwOjBZMZ1b9fwCfUFuc kT6BoIXhTsN0ulOvFrWlXNg= =u65U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ From fergdawg at netzero.net Mon Apr 21 13:05:48 2008 From: fergdawg at netzero.net (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:05:48 GMT Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080421.110548.29035.2@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Paul Ferguson" wrote: >Hmmm. Who exactly is "The Internet Innovation Alliance"? > >Unfortunately, their website does not say: [...] As someone pointed out to me privately, this URL outlines it's membership: http://www.internetinnovation.org/AboutUs/Members/tabid/59/Default.aspx Not sure how they found it, since there is no "About Us" link on the main page. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDNdpq1pz9mNUZTMRAvo6AKCIje224+1TOsLCgbXL8mPJ3fRrdgCffnRX B4Wba6bOm/enwEico/R9LWo= =NEjI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/o From johnl at iecc.com Mon Apr 21 13:23:47 2008 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 21 Apr 2008 18:23:47 -0000 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421.104244.29035.1@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20080421182347.72348.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Hmmm. Who exactly is "The Internet Innovation Alliance"? > http://www.internetinnovation.org/ The domain is registered to Larry Irving in D.C., who was an assistant commerce secretary in the Clinton administration. A little googlage finds this op-ed piece from last May. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301418.html The most interesting part is the author bios at the end: Bruce Mehlman was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush. Larry Irving was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. They are co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance, a coalition of individuals, businesses and nonprofit groups that includes telecommunications companies. R's, John From sean at donelan.com Mon Apr 21 13:53:41 2008 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421.104244.29035.1@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> References: <20080421.104244.29035.1@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: > But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming > Internet "exaflood" apocalypse), I would guess they are either > compromised of telcos and ISPs or telco lobbyists or both. :-) Thank goodness anti-virus companies never hype security threats or fund "Internet safety" organizations :-) > It would be interesting to know (the rest of the story...) Everyone agrees having more data would be useful. It would be great if someone could collect the available data, and get more data from multiple providers (universities, small, large, for-profit, non-profit, etc), and publish something. From hrlinneweh at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 21 13:58:46 2008 From: hrlinneweh at sbcglobal.net (Henry Linneweh) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <684755.29210.qm@web82907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Internet Alliance http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1498631 http://www.internetinnovation.org/ http://www.internetinnovation.org/AboutUs/Members/tabid/59/Default.aspx -Henry ----- Original Message ---- From: Sean Donelan To: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:53:41 AM Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: > But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming > Internet "exaflood" apocalypse), I would guess they are either > compromised of telcos and ISPs or telco lobbyists or both. :-) Thank goodness anti-virus companies never hype security threats or fund "Internet safety" organizations :-) > It would be interesting to know (the rest of the story...) Everyone agrees having more data would be useful. It would be great if someone could collect the available data, and get more data from multiple providers (universities, small, large, for-profit, non-profit, etc), and publish something. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From surfer at mauigateway.com Mon Apr 21 14:01:35 2008 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:01:35 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080421120135.54EC36FF@resin09.mta.everyone.net> ------- johnl at iecc.com wrote: ------------ The most interesting part is the author bios at the end: Bruce Mehlman was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush. Larry Irving was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. They are co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance, a coalition of individuals, businesses and nonprofit groups that includes telecommunications companies. ------------------------------------------------- It also includes AT&T as well as schloads ;-) of companies that sell stuff to them. scott ------- From scg at gibbard.org Mon Apr 21 14:12:10 2008 From: scg at gibbard.org (Steve Gibbard) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Sean Donelan wrote: > The rest of the story? > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-traffic-jam_N.htm > > By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly > equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) of bandwidth a > month, according to an estimate by the Internet Innovation Alliance in > Washington, D.C. At that level, it says, 20 homes would generate more > traffic than the entire Internet did in 1995. > > How many folks remember InternetMCI's lack of capacity in the 1990's > when it actually needed to stop installing new Internet connections > because InternetMCI didn't have any more capacity for several months. I've been on the side arguing that there's going to be enough growth to cause interesting issues (which is very different than arguing for any specific remedy that the telcos think will be in their benefit), but the numbers quoted above strike me as an overstatement. Let's look at the numbers: iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per hour. For iTunes video, 1.1 terabytes would be 1,100 gigabytes, or 1,100 / .75 = 1,467 hours. 1,467 / 30 = 48.9 hours of video per day. Even assuming we divide that among three or four people in a household, that's staggering. For HDTV, 1,100 gigabytes would be 1,100 / 3.6 = 306 hours per month. 306 / 30 = 10.2 hours per day. Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the "leave the TV on all day" demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? -Steve From david at davidcoulson.net Mon Apr 21 14:22:32 2008 From: david at davidcoulson.net (David Coulson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:22:32 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> Message-ID: <480CE978.5010307@davidcoulson.net> Steve Gibbard wrote: > Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the "leave the TV on all day" > demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than > HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? > I would not be surprised if many households watch more than 10hrs of TV per day. My trusty old series 2 TiVo often records 5-8hrs of TV per day, even if I don't watch any of it. Right now I can get 80 or so channels of basic cable, and who knows how many of Digital Cable/Satellite for as many TVs as I can fit in my house without the Internet buckling under the pressure. I assume AT&T is just saying "We use this pipe for TV and Internet, hence all TV is now considered Internet traffic"? How many people are REALLY going to be pulling 10hrs of HD or even SD TV across their Internet connection, rather than just taking what is Multicasted from a Satellite base station by their TV service provider? Is there something significant about AT&T's model (other than the VDSL over twisted pair, rather than coax/fiber to the prem) that makes them more afraid than Comcast, Charter or Cox? Maybe I'm just totally missing something - Wouldn't be the first time. Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no, YouTube is not "TV" as far as I'm concerned. From cmadams at hiwaay.net Mon Apr 21 14:43:14 2008 From: cmadams at hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:43:14 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> Message-ID: <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> Once upon a time, Steve Gibbard said: > iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 > gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits > per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), > which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per > hour. You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. My TiVo probably records 12-20 hours per day (I don't watch all that of course), often using two tuners (so up to 38 megabits per second). That's not all HD today of course, but the percentage that is HD is going up. 1.1 terabytes of ATSC-level HD would be a little over 4 hours a day. If you have a family with multiple TVs, that's easy to hit. That also assumes that we get 40-60 megabit connections (2-3 ATSC format channels) that can sustain that level of traffic to the household with widespread deployment in 2 years and that the "average" household hooks it up to their TVs. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. From Marc.Williams at neustar.biz Mon Apr 21 14:52:51 2008 From: Marc.Williams at neustar.biz (Williams, Marc) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:52:51 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <480CE978.5010307@davidcoulson.net> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <480CE978.5010307@davidcoulson.net> Message-ID: > Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no, > YouTube is not "TV" as far as I'm concerned. FWIW: http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html From jgreco at ns.sol.net Mon Apr 21 14:54:40 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:54:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <480CBAA9.5020806@davidcoulson.net> from "David Coulson" at Apr 21, 2008 12:02:49 PM Message-ID: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> > > Joe Greco wrote: > > For those unfamiliar, Cogent has a system where you set up an EBGP peering > > with the Cogent router you're connected to, for the purposes of announcing > > your routes into Cogent. However, these are typically smaller, aggregation > > class routers, and do not handle full tables - so you don't get your routes > > from that router. To get a full table FROM Cogent, you need to set up an > > EBGP multihop session with them, to their nearest full-table router. I > > believe they actually do all their BGP connections in that manner. > > Depends on the service you purchase. Fast Ethernet seems to be delivered > as eBGP-multihop (the first hop is just a L3 switch), however DS-3 is > handled as a single BGP session. I'm not sure if GigE or SONET services > are handled as multihop or not. GigE is, though perhaps not in all cases (we had a client buying x00Mbps delivered over gigE, which was definitely multihop). > Probably all depends what hardware they have at each POP.... In part, I'm sure. There is also a certain benefit to having consistency throughout your network, and it sometimes struck me that many of the folks working for Cogent had a bit more than average difficulty dealing with the unusual situation. This is not meant harshly, btw. Generally I like the Cogent folks, but they (and their products) have their faults, just as any of the competition does. It may also help to remember that there's "legacy" Cogent and then there's PSI/etc. Perhaps there are some differences as a result. The more things you can do using the same template, the less difficult it is to support. On the flip side, the less flexible you are ... ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From simon at slimey.org Mon Apr 21 14:57:39 2008 From: simon at slimey.org (Simon Lockhart) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:57:39 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> On Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) > is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, MPEG4 SD is around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. A typical satellite TV multiplex is 20-30Mbps for 4-8 channels, depending on how much the broadcaster pays for higher bitrate, and thus higher quality. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info at bogons.net * From mhernand1 at comcast.net Mon Apr 21 15:02:48 2008 From: mhernand1 at comcast.net (manolo) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:02:48 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> References: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: <480CF2E8.4070402@comcast.net> I do have to say that the PSI net side of cogent is very good. We use them in Europe without many issues. I stay far away from the legacy cogent network in US. Manolo Joe Greco wrote: >> Joe Greco wrote: >> >>> For those unfamiliar, Cogent has a system where you set up an EBGP peering >>> with the Cogent router you're connected to, for the purposes of announcing >>> your routes into Cogent. However, these are typically smaller, aggregation >>> class routers, and do not handle full tables - so you don't get your routes >>> from that router. To get a full table FROM Cogent, you need to set up an >>> EBGP multihop session with them, to their nearest full-table router. I >>> believe they actually do all their BGP connections in that manner. >>> >> Depends on the service you purchase. Fast Ethernet seems to be delivered >> as eBGP-multihop (the first hop is just a L3 switch), however DS-3 is >> handled as a single BGP session. I'm not sure if GigE or SONET services >> are handled as multihop or not. >> > > GigE is, though perhaps not in all cases (we had a client buying x00Mbps > delivered over gigE, which was definitely multihop). > > >> Probably all depends what hardware they have at each POP.... >> > > In part, I'm sure. There is also a certain benefit to having consistency > throughout your network, and it sometimes struck me that many of the folks > working for Cogent had a bit more than average difficulty dealing with the > unusual situation. This is not meant harshly, btw. Generally I like the > Cogent folks, but they (and their products) have their faults, just as any > of the competition does. > > It may also help to remember that there's "legacy" Cogent and then there's > PSI/etc. Perhaps there are some differences as a result. > > The more things you can do using the same template, the less difficult it > is to support. On the flip side, the less flexible you are ... > > ... JG > From cmadams at hiwaay.net Mon Apr 21 15:12:16 2008 From: cmadams at hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> <20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> Message-ID: <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Once upon a time, Simon Lockhart said: > On Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) > > is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. > > I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, MPEG4 SD is around > 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on how much wow > factor the broadcaster is trying to give. Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel. Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around half that for similar quality. The base Blu-Ray data rate is 36 megabits per second (to allow for high quality MPEG2 at up to 1080p60 resolution). -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. From jgreco at ns.sol.net Mon Apr 21 15:16:33 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:16:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <480CE978.5010307@davidcoulson.net> from "David Coulson" at Apr 21, 2008 03:22:32 PM Message-ID: <200804212016.m3LKGX4S048373@aurora.sol.net> > Steve Gibbard wrote: > > Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the "leave the TV on all day" > > demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than > > HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? > > I would not be surprised if many households watch more than 10hrs of TV > per day. My trusty old series 2 TiVo often records 5-8hrs of TV per day, > even if I don't watch any of it. > > Right now I can get 80 or so channels of basic cable, and who knows how > many of Digital Cable/Satellite for as many TVs as I can fit in my house > without the Internet buckling under the pressure. I assume AT&T is just > saying "We use this pipe for TV and Internet, hence all TV is now > considered Internet traffic"? How many people are REALLY going to be > pulling 10hrs of HD or even SD TV across their Internet connection, > rather than just taking what is Multicasted from a Satellite base > station by their TV service provider? Is there something significant > about AT&T's model (other than the VDSL over twisted pair, rather than > coax/fiber to the prem) that makes them more afraid than Comcast, > Charter or Cox? > > Maybe I'm just totally missing something - Wouldn't be the first time. > Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no, YouTube is > not "TV" as far as I'm concerned. The real problem is that this technology is just in its infancy. Right now, our TiVo's may pull in many hours a day of TV to watch. In my case, it's from satellite. In yours, maybe from a cable company. That's fine, that's manageable, and the technology used to move the signal from the broad/multicast point to your settop box is only vaguely relevant. It is not unicast. There is, however, an opportunity here for a fundamental change in the distribution model of video, and this should terrify any network operator. That would be an evolution towards unicast, particularly off-net unicast. I posted a message on Oct 10 of last year suggesting one potential model for evolution of video services. We're seeing the market target narrower segments of the viewing public, and if this continues, we may well see some "channel" partner with TiVo to provide on-demand access to remote content over the Internet. That could well lead to a model where you would have TiVo speculatively preloading content, and potentially vast amounts of it. Or, worse yet, the popularity of YouTube suggests that at some point, we may end up with a new "local webserver service" on the next generation Microsoft Whoopta OS that was capable of publication of video from the local PC, maybe vaguely similar to BitTorrent under the hood, allowing for a much higher bandwidth podcast-like service where your TiVo (and everyone else's) is downloading video slowly from lots of different sources. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From kilroy at WasHere.COM Mon Apr 21 15:25:07 2008 From: kilroy at WasHere.COM (Ric Messier) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> <20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Chris Adams wrote: > > Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can > carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel. > Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only > use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around half that for similar quality. The base > Blu-Ray data rate is 36 megabits per second (to allow for high quality > MPEG2 at up to 1080p60 resolution). > >From wikipedia (see: Appeal to authority :-): The different resolutions can operate in progressive scan or interlaced mode, although the highest 1080-line system cannot display progressive images at the rate of 59.94 or 60 frames per second. (Such technology was seen as too advanced at the time, plus the image quality was deemed to be too poor considering the amount of data that can be transmitted.) A terrestrial (over-the-air) transmission carries 19.39 megabits of data per second, compared to a maximum possible bitrate of 10.08 Mbit/s allowed in the DVD standard. Ric From dhetzel at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 15:37:38 2008 From: dhetzel at gmail.com (Dorn Hetzel) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:37:38 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> <20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <2ee691ff0804211337k559abfa9s40216feae59867c3@mail.gmail.com> My directivo records wads of stuff every day, but they are the same bits that rain down on gazillions of other potential recorders and viewers. Incremental cost to serve one more household, pretty much zero. There are definitely narrowcast applications that don't make sense to broadcast down from a bird, but it also makes no sense at all to claim for capacity planning purposes that every household will need a unicast IP stream of all it's TV viewing capacity... -dorn On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ric Messier wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Chris Adams wrote: > > > > > Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can > > carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel. > > Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only > > use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around half that for similar quality. The base > > Blu-Ray data rate is 36 megabits per second (to allow for high quality > > MPEG2 at up to 1080p60 resolution). > > > > >From wikipedia (see: Appeal to authority :-): > The different resolutions can operate in progressive scan or interlaced > mode, although the highest 1080-line system cannot display progressive > images at the rate of 59.94 or 60 frames per second. (Such technology was > seen as too advanced at the time, plus the image quality was deemed to be > too poor considering the amount of data that can be transmitted.) A > terrestrial (over-the-air) transmission carries 19.39 megabits of data per > second, compared to a maximum possible bitrate of 10.08 Mbit/s allowed in > the DVD standard. > > > Ric > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From surfer at mauigateway.com Mon Apr 21 15:44:15 2008 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:44:15 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <20080421134415.54EC0035@resin09.mta.everyone.net> --- Marc.Williams at neustar.biz wrote: From: "Williams, Marc" http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html ---------------------------------------------- We should be careful when discussing IPTV traffic issues. Is it inter-AS or intra-AS traffic? I'd imagine the beginning of the IPTV roll-out will be intra-AS traffic, rather than inter-AS and global. We're looking into starting up with it on a small scale to work all the bugs out before expanding the customer base (like AT&T did in San Antonio) but no IPTV traffic will leave our network. AT&T is rapidly expanding U-verse (http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2826839220070328 and http://seekingalpha.com/article/30657-project-lightspeed-at-t-s-iptv-architecture) and perhaps they've seen the BW issues better than others, thus the FUD by their vice president of legislative affairs at the Westminster eForum. Perhaps in his PoV AT&T's current network infrastructure is the Internet's current network architecture. scott --------------------- From alex at blastro.com Mon Apr 21 16:26:22 2008 From: alex at blastro.com (Alex Thurlow) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <480D067E.3060702@blastro.com> Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Steve Gibbard said: >> iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 >> gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits >> per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), >> which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per >> hour. > > You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) > is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. My TiVo probably > records 12-20 hours per day (I don't watch all that of course), often > using two tuners (so up to 38 megabits per second). That's not all HD > today of course, but the percentage that is HD is going up. > > 1.1 terabytes of ATSC-level HD would be a little over 4 hours a day. If > you have a family with multiple TVs, that's easy to hit. > > That also assumes that we get 40-60 megabit connections (2-3 ATSC format > channels) that can sustain that level of traffic to the household with > widespread deployment in 2 years and that the "average" household hooks > it up to their TVs. > I'm going to have to say that that's much higher than we're actually going to see. You have to remember that there's not a ton of compression going on in that. We're looking to start pushing HD video online, and our intial tests show that 1.5Mbps is plenty to push HD resolutions of video online. We won't necessarily be doing 60 fps or full quality audio, but "HD" doesn't actually define exactly what it's going to be. Look at the HD offerings online today and I think you'll find that they're mostly 1-1.5 Mbps. TV will stay much higher quality than that, but if people are watching from their PCs, I think you'll see much more compression going on, given that the hardware processing it has a lot more horsepower. -- Alex Thurlow Technical Director Blastro Networks From john-lists at vanoppen.com Mon Apr 21 18:04:19 2008 From: john-lists at vanoppen.com (John van Oppen (list account)) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:04:19 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets References: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> <480CF2E8.4070402@comcast.net> Message-ID: Not sure what you are talking about, cogent is all AS174... Other than a few odd routers doing DS3 aggregation I don't think there is any old PSInet network online (other than the AS number and IP addresses). Cogent integrated acquisitions quite quickly (I was an aleron customer and it only took two months from the purchase close for us to move from AS4200 to 174). As for the two BGP peer question, they do it anywhere where they have Ethernet distribution, at least as far I can tell. That being said, we don't use them anymore since we could not get them to play-ball on pricing at larger commits either (I won't buy cogent if they don't at least match the terms of our cheapest large-network transit provider). :) John van Oppen Spectrum Networks LLC 206.973.8302 (Direct) 206.973.8300 (main office) -----Original Message----- From: manolo [mailto:mhernand1 at comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:03 PM To: Joe Greco Cc: nanog at merit.edu Subject: Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets I do have to say that the PSI net side of cogent is very good. We use them in Europe without many issues. I stay far away from the legacy cogent network in US. Manolo Joe Greco wrote: >> Joe Greco wrote: >> >>> For those unfamiliar, Cogent has a system where you set up an EBGP peering >>> with the Cogent router you're connected to, for the purposes of announcing >>> your routes into Cogent. However, these are typically smaller, aggregation >>> class routers, and do not handle full tables - so you don't get your routes >>> from that router. To get a full table FROM Cogent, you need to set up an >>> EBGP multihop session with them, to their nearest full-table router. I >>> believe they actually do all their BGP connections in that manner. >>> >> Depends on the service you purchase. Fast Ethernet seems to be delivered >> as eBGP-multihop (the first hop is just a L3 switch), however DS-3 is >> handled as a single BGP session. I'm not sure if GigE or SONET services >> are handled as multihop or not. >> > > GigE is, though perhaps not in all cases (we had a client buying x00Mbps > delivered over gigE, which was definitely multihop). > > >> Probably all depends what hardware they have at each POP.... >> > > In part, I'm sure. There is also a certain benefit to having consistency > throughout your network, and it sometimes struck me that many of the folks > working for Cogent had a bit more than average difficulty dealing with the > unusual situation. This is not meant harshly, btw. Generally I like the > Cogent folks, but they (and their products) have their faults, just as any > of the competition does. > > It may also help to remember that there's "legacy" Cogent and then there's > PSI/etc. Perhaps there are some differences as a result. > > The more things you can do using the same template, the less difficult it > is to support. On the flip side, the less flexible you are ... > > ... JG > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From frnkblk at iname.com Mon Apr 21 20:35:45 2008 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk - iNAME) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:35:45 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <480D067E.3060702@blastro.com> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> <480D067E.3060702@blastro.com> Message-ID: I've found it interesting that those who do Internet TV (re)define HD in a way that no one would consider HD anymore except the provider. =) In the news recently has been some complaints about Comcast's HD TV. Comcast has been (selectively) fitting 3 MPEG-2 HD streams in a 6 MHz carrier (38 Mbps = 12.6 Mbps) and customers aren't happy with that. I'm not sure how the average consumer will see 1.5 Mbps for HD video as sufficient unless it's QVGA. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Alex Thurlow [mailto:alex at blastro.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:26 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 I'm going to have to say that that's much higher than we're actually going to see. You have to remember that there's not a ton of compression going on in that. We're looking to start pushing HD video online, and our intial tests show that 1.5Mbps is plenty to push HD resolutions of video online. We won't necessarily be doing 60 fps or full quality audio, but "HD" doesn't actually define exactly what it's going to be. Look at the HD offerings online today and I think you'll find that they're mostly 1-1.5 Mbps. TV will stay much higher quality than that, but if people are watching from their PCs, I think you'll see much more compression going on, given that the hardware processing it has a lot more horsepower. -- Alex Thurlow Technical Director Blastro Networks _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From joly at punkcast.com Tue Apr 22 00:01:46 2008 From: joly at punkcast.com (WWWhatsup) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> References: <20080418172544.5D37C3CF@resin14.mta.everyone.net> Message-ID: <20080422050146.4E415880D7@spunkymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com> I am pretty sure he is basing it on this: http://www.internetinnovation.org/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/94/Default.aspx which itself refers to the Nemertes report, issued last November: "The Internet Singularity, Delayed: Why Limits in Internet Capacity Will Stifle Innovation on the Web" http://www.nemertes.com/internet_singularity_delayed_why_limits_internet_capacity_will_stifle_innovation_web and much discussed at the time - http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=13 and elsewhere. Joly MacFie http://isoc-ny.org/ >From: "Scott Francis" > >Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if >they even had a basis at all)? >---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --------------------------------------------------------------- From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Tue Apr 22 00:20:49 2008 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:20:49 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> Message-ID: <480D75B1.4060201@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Here in comcast land hdtv is actually averaging around 12 megabits a second. Still adds up to staggering numbers..:) Steve Gibbard wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Sean Donelan wrote: > >> The rest of the story? >> >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-traffic-jam_N.htm >> >> By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly >> equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) of bandwidth a >> month, according to an estimate by the Internet Innovation Alliance in >> Washington, D.C. At that level, it says, 20 homes would generate more >> traffic than the entire Internet did in 1995. >> >> How many folks remember InternetMCI's lack of capacity in the 1990's >> when it actually needed to stop installing new Internet connections >> because InternetMCI didn't have any more capacity for several months. > > I've been on the side arguing that there's going to be enough growth to > cause interesting issues (which is very different than arguing for any > specific remedy that the telcos think will be in their benefit), but the > numbers quoted above strike me as an overstatement. > > Let's look at the numbers: > > iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 > gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits > per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), > which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per > hour. > > For iTunes video, 1.1 terabytes would be 1,100 gigabytes, or 1,100 / .75 = > 1,467 hours. 1,467 / 30 = 48.9 hours of video per day. Even assuming we > divide that among three or four people in a household, that's staggering. > > For HDTV, 1,100 gigabytes would be 1,100 / 3.6 = 306 hours per month. 306 > / 30 = 10.2 hours per day. > > Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the "leave the TV on all day" > demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than > HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? > > -Steve > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > -- Registered Microsoft Partner My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 From fergdawg at netzero.net Tue Apr 22 00:57:44 2008 From: fergdawg at netzero.net (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:57:44 GMT Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] Message-ID: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- William Warren wrote: >Here in comcast land hdtv is actually averaging around 12 megabits a second. Still adds up to staggering numbers..:) > Another disturbing fact inside this entire mess is that, by compressing HD content, consumers are noticing the degradation in quality: http://cbs5.com/local/hdtv.cable.compression.2.705405.html So, we have a "Tragedy of The Commons" situation that is completely created by the telcos themselves trying to force consumer decisions, and then failing to deliver, but bemoaning the fact that infrastructure is being over-utilized by file-sharers (or "Exafloods" or whatever the apocalyptic issue of the day is for telcos). A real Charlie Foxtrot. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDX5Rq1pz9mNUZTMRAovKAJ0SXpK/XrW73mkCGZhtLCO5ZGsspQCfbUY3 0DPluYrtq0Et/RbvJguq3WM= =furJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ From pauldotwall at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 01:45:02 2008 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul Wall) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:45:02 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <480CF2E8.4070402@comcast.net> References: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> <480CF2E8.4070402@comcast.net> Message-ID: <620fd17c0804212345y27745510l2f8c937baa1e7380@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM, manolo wrote: > I do have to say that the PSI net side of cogent is very good. We use > them in Europe without many issues. I stay far away from the legacy > cogent network in US. You still haven't explained the failure modes you've experienced as a result of cogent's A/B peer configuration, only fronted. Inquiring minds would like to know! From petri at helenius.fi Tue Apr 22 03:17:27 2008 From: petri at helenius.fi (Petri Helenius) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:17:27 +0300 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> Time to push multicast as transport for bittorrent? If the downloads get better performance that way, I think the clients would be around quicker that multicast would be enabled for consumer DSL or cable. Pete Paul Ferguson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > - -- William Warren wrote: > > >> Here in comcast land hdtv is actually averaging around 12 megabits a >> > second. Still adds up to staggering numbers..:) > > > Another disturbing fact inside this entire mess is that, by compressing > HD content, consumers are noticing the degradation in quality: > > http://cbs5.com/local/hdtv.cable.compression.2.705405.html > > So, we have a "Tragedy of The Commons" situation that is completely > created by the telcos themselves trying to force consumer decisions, > and then failing to deliver, but bemoaning the fact that > infrastructure is being over-utilized by file-sharers (or > "Exafloods" or whatever the apocalyptic issue of the day is for > telcos). > > A real Charlie Foxtrot. > > - - ferg > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) > > wj8DBQFIDX5Rq1pz9mNUZTMRAovKAJ0SXpK/XrW73mkCGZhtLCO5ZGsspQCfbUY3 > 0DPluYrtq0Et/RbvJguq3WM= > =furJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > fergdawg(at)netzero.net > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > From fbako at africaonline.co.ke Tue Apr 22 03:56:45 2008 From: fbako at africaonline.co.ke (Felix Bako) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:56:45 +0300 Subject: [Nanog] REDUSE LEASE PERIOD Message-ID: <480DA84D.7060906@africaonline.co.ke> Hi Guyz We have a cisco PDSN that acts as a NAS for our Wireless BroadBand Clients. The PDSN tackles the IP alllocation Part. This is because we have defined the ips to be allocated using the IP LOCAL POOL command. Is there a way to reduce the lease period of the allocated IPs. The IOS code is disk2:c7200-c6ik9s-mz.123-11.YF4.bin. -- Best Regards, Felix Bako Team Leader Networks Africa Online, Kenya Tel: +254 (20) 27 92 000 Fax: +254 (20) 27 100 10 Email: fbako at africaonline.co.ke Aim:felixbako * Africa Online Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note * This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Africa Online Holdings (Kenya) Limited and / or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and have received this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, delete this e-mail immediately and do not disclose or use the same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages, however incurred, resulting from the use of this e-mail or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail, nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. For more information about Africa Online, please visit our website at http://www.africaonline.com From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 05:33:44 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:33:44 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com><20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org><20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net><20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: > > I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, > MPEG4 SD is > > around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on > > how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. > > Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and transmit that? I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to subscribers but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with TV receivers in their head ends. All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day whether they are at home or not. At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. Everything else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big melting pot. But that day is long gone. On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video files during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation between P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which can be told to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the other side of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could arrange for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering circuit during the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute elsewhere. --Michael Dillon As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 05:55:58 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:55:58 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> Message-ID: > Time to push multicast as transport for bittorrent? Bittorrent clients are already multicast, only they do it in a crude way that does not match network topology as well as it could. Moving to use IP multicast raises a whole host of technical issues such as lack of multicast peering. Solving those technical issues requires ISP cooperation, i.e. to support global multicast. But there is another way. That is for software developers to build a modified client that depends on a topology guru for information on the network topology. This topology guru would be some software that is run by an ISP, and which communicates with all other topology gurus in neighboring ASes These gurus learn the topology using some kind of protocol like a routing protocol. They also have some local intelligence configured by the ISP such as allowed traffic rates at certain time periods over certain paths. And they share all of that information in order to optimize the overall downloading of all files to all clients which share the same guru. Some ISPs have local DSL architectures in which it makes better sense to download a file from a remote location, than from the guy next door. In that case, an ISP could configure a guru to prefer circuits into their data centre, then operate clients in the data center that effectively cache files. But the caching thing is optional. Then, a bittorrent client doesn't have to guess how to get files quickly, it just has to follow the guru's instructions. Part of this would involve cooperating with all other clients attached to the same guru so that no client downloads distant blocks of data that have already been downloaded by another local client. This is the part that really starts to look like IP multicast except that it doesn't rely on all clients functioning in real time. Also, it looks like NNTP news servers except that the caching is all done on the clients. The gurus never cache or download files. For this to work, you need to start by getting several ISPs to buy-in, help with the design work, and then deploy the gurus. Once this proves itself in terms of managing how and *WHEN* bandwidth is used, it should catch on quite quickly with ISPs. Note that a key part of this architecture is that it allows the ISP to open up the throttle on downloads during off-peak hours so that most end users can get a predictable service of all downloads completed overnight. --Michael Dillon From dhetzel at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 06:25:30 2008 From: dhetzel at gmail.com (Dorn Hetzel) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:25:30 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> <20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <2ee691ff0804220425mcbf1a6emc380ed04ae02cdca@mail.gmail.com> It's certainly not reasonable to assume the same video goes to all consumers, but on the other hand, there *is* plenty of video that goes to a *lot* of consumers. I don't really need my own personal unicast copy of the bits that make up an episode of BSG or whatever. I would hope that the future has even more tivo-like devices at the consumer edge that can take advantage of the right (desired) bits whenever they are available. A single "box" that can take bits off the bird or cable tv when what it wants is found there or request over IP when it needs to doesn't seem like rocket science... -dorn On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:33 AM, wrote: > > > > I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, > > MPEG4 SD is > > > around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on > > > how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. > > > > Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. > > So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? > Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? > Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and > transmit that? > > I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to > subscribers > but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never > touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with TV > receivers in their head ends. > > All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of > IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs > per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the > bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is > going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just > to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day > whether > they are at home or not. > > At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single > ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast > TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. > Everything > else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP > multicast > does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 > unique > streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver > the > same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big > melting > pot. But that day is long gone. > > On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video > files > during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation > between > P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which can > be told > to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the other > side > of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could > arrange > for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering > circuit during > the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute > elsewhere. > > --Michael Dillon > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > *NOT* video, > it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Tue Apr 22 07:06:22 2008 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:06:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 Message-ID: <200804221206.NAA17302@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? Because we can. One day ISPs might do multicast and it might become cheap enough to deliver to the home. If we don't then they probably will never bother fixing those two problems I've been multicasting the BBCs channels in the UK since 2004. The full rate are mostly used by NOCs with our news on their projectors, we have lower rate h264, WM and Real for people testing multicast over current ADSL. The aim is by 2012 to be able to do all our Olympics sports in HD (a channel per simultaneous event rather than the usual just one with highlights of each) something we can't do on DTT (= ATSC) due to lack of spectrum (there's enough but it's being sold for non TV use after analogue switch off) > Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? Sure, STB for TV and VLC etc for most OS. It's trivial > No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs > per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the > bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. That's because they don't have a viable business model (unlimited use...). Cable companies are moving to IP, they already carry it from their core to the home just the transport is changing. > And nobody is > going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just > to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day > whether they are at home or not. When people do it unicast regardless then not doing multicast is silly > At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single > ISP's network. Unlikely, too much infrastructure and not all content is available locally > Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. See Sky Movies for a simulation of multicast VoD > IP multicast > does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 > unique streams. True but the 10000000 watching BBC1 may as well be multicast, at least you save a bit. > In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the > same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big > melting pot. But that day is long gone. Evidence is a lot of people still like to vegetate in front of a tv rather than hunt their content. Once they're all dead we'll find out if linear TV is still viable, by then IPv6 roll out may have completed too. > On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video > files during off-peak hours on the network. Sure but P2P isn't a requirement for that and currently saves you no money (UK ADSL wholesale model) over unicast. If people are taking random content you won't be able to predict and send it in advance. If you can predict then you can multicast it and save some transport cost vs P2P/unicast > Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could arrange > for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering > circuit during > the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute > elsewhere. Or they could just run an http cache and save a lot more traffic and not have to rely on P2P apps playing nicely. Apologies for length, just "no" seemed too rude brandon From tme at multicasttech.com Tue Apr 22 07:10:00 2008 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:10:00 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com> <20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org> <20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net> <480D067E.3060702@blastro.com> Message-ID: On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: > I've found it interesting that those who do Internet TV (re)define > HD in a > way that no one would consider HD anymore except the provider. =) > The FCC did not appear to set a bit rate specification for HD Television. The ATSC standard (A-53 part 4) specifies aspect ratios and pixel formats and frame rates, but not bit rates. So AFAICT, no redefinition is necessary. If you are doing (say) 720 x 1280 at 30 fps, you can call it HD, regardless of your bit rate. If you can find somewhere where the standard says otherwise, I would like to know about it. > In the news recently has been some complaints about Comcast's HD TV. > Comcast has been (selectively) fitting 3 MPEG-2 HD streams in a 6 MHz > carrier (38 Mbps = 12.6 Mbps) and customers aren't happy with that. > I'm not > sure how the average consumer will see 1.5 Mbps for HD video as > sufficient > unless it's QVGA. Well, not with a 15+ year old standard like MPEG-2. (And, of course, HD is a set of pixel formats that specifically does not include QVGA.) I have had video professionals go "wow" at H.264 dual pass 720 p encodings at 2 Mbps, so it can be done. The real question is, how often do you see artifacts ? And, how much does the user care ? Modern encodings at these bit rates tend to provide very good encodings of static scenes. As the on-screen action increases, so does the likelihood of artifacts, so selection of bit rate depends I think on user expectations and the typical content being down. (As an aside, I see lots of artifacts on my at-home Cable HD, but I don't know their bandwidth allocation.) Regards Marshall > > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Thurlow [mailto:alex at blastro.com] > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:26 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > > > I'm going to have to say that that's much higher than we're actually > going to see. You have to remember that there's not a ton of > compression going on in that. We're looking to start pushing HD video > online, and our intial tests show that 1.5Mbps is plenty to push HD > resolutions of video online. We won't necessarily be doing 60 fps or > full quality audio, but "HD" doesn't actually define exactly what it's > going to be. > > Look at the HD offerings online today and I think you'll find that > they're mostly 1-1.5 Mbps. TV will stay much higher quality than > that, > but if people are watching from their PCs, I think you'll see much > more > compression going on, given that the hardware processing it has a lot > more horsepower. > > > -- > Alex Thurlow > Technical Director > Blastro Networks > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org Tue Apr 22 07:13:24 2008 From: nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org (Mark Smith) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:43:24 +0930 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> Message-ID: <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:55:58 +0100 wrote: > > > Time to push multicast as transport for bittorrent? > > Bittorrent clients are already multicast, only they do it in a crude way > that does not match network topology as well as it could. Moving to use > IP multicast raises a whole host of technical issues such as lack of > multicast peering. Solving those technical issues requires ISP > cooperation, i.e. to support global multicast. > > But there is another way. That is for software developers to build a > modified client that depends on a topology guru for information on the > network topology. Isn't TCP already measuring throughput and latency of the network for RTO etc.? Why not expose those parameters for peers to the local P2P software, and then have it select the closest peers with either the lowest latency, the highest throughput, or a weighed combination of both? I'd think that would create a lot of locality in the traffic. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear" From petri at helenius.fi Tue Apr 22 07:12:30 2008 From: petri at helenius.fi (Petri Helenius) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:12:30 +0300 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> Message-ID: <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > But there is another way. That is for software developers to build a > modified client that depends on a topology guru for information on the > network topology. This topology guru would be some software that is run > While the current bittorrent implementation is suboptimal for large swarms (where number of adjacent peers is significantly less than the number of total participants) I fail to figure out the necessary mathematics where topology information would bring superior results compared to the usual greedy algorithms where data is requested from the peers where it seems to be flowing at the best rates. If local peers with sufficient upstream bandwidth exist, majority of the data blocks are already retrieved from them. In many locales ISP's tend to limit the available upstream on their consumer connections, usually causing more distant bits to be delivered instead. I think the most important metric to study is the number of times the same piece of data is transmitted in a defined time period and try to figure out how to optimize for that. For a new episode of BSG, there are a few hundred thousand copies in the first hour and a million or so in the first few days. With the headers and overhead, we might already be hitting a petabyte per episode. RSS feeds seem to shorten the distribution ramp-up from release. The p2p world needs more high-upstream "proxies" to make it more effective. I think locality with current torrent implementations would happen automatically. However there are quite a few parties who are happy to have it as bad as they can make it :-) Is there a problem that needs to be solved that is not solved by Akamai's of the world already? Pete From trejrco at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 07:26:12 2008 From: trejrco at gmail.com (TJ) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:26:12 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com><20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org><20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net><20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <000601c8a474$2235ec60$66a1c520$@com> "IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big melting pot. But that day is long gone." ... well multicast could be used - one stream for each of the "500 channels" or whatever, and the time-shifting could be done on the recipients' sides ... just like broadcast TV + DVR today ... as long as we aren't talking about adding place-shifting (a la SlingBox) also! The market (or, atleast in the short-mid term - the provider :) ) would decide on that. /TJ > -----Original Message----- > From: michael.dillon at bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:34 AM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > > > > I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, > > MPEG4 SD is > > > around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on > > > how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. > > > > Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. > > So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? > Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? > Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and > transmit that? > > I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to > subscribers > but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never > touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with TV > receivers in their head ends. > > All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of > IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs > per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the > bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is > going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just > to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day > whether > they are at home or not. > > At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single > ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live > broadcast > TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. > Everything > else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP > multicast > does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 > unique > streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could > deliver > the > same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big > melting > pot. But that day is long gone. > > On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video > files > during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation > between > P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which can > be told > to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the > other > side > of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could > arrange > for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering > circuit during > the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute > elsewhere. > > --Michael Dillon > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > *NOT* video, > it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Tue Apr 22 07:27:01 2008 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:27:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] Message-ID: <200804221227.NAA29391@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > Is there a problem that needs to be solved that is not solved by > Akamai's of the world already? Yes, the ones that aren't Akamai want to play too branodn From a.harrowell at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 07:35:41 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:35:41 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Mark Smith < nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:55:58 +0100 > wrote: > > > But there is another way. That is for software developers to build a > > modified client that depends on a topology guru for information on the > > network topology. > > > > Isn't TCP already measuring throughput and latency of the network for > RTO etc.? Why not expose those parameters for peers to the local P2P > software, and then have it select the closest peers with either the > lowest latency, the highest throughput, or a weighed combination of > both? I'd think that would create a lot of locality in the traffic. > > Regards, > Mark > This is where you hit a serious problem. If you implemented that in a client, it could be much worse than naive P2P for quite a lot of networks - for example all the UK ISPs. If you have a bitstream/IPStream architecture, your bits get hauled from local aggregation sites to your routers via L2TP and you get billed by the telco for them; now, if you strictly localise P2P traffic, all the localised bits will be transiting the bitstream sector TWICE, drastically increasing your costs. (Assumption: your upstream costs are made up of X amount of wholesale transit+Y amount of peering, unlike your telco costs which in this case are 100% transit-like and paid for by the bit.) Things also vary depending on the wholesale transit and peering market; for example, someone like a customer of CityLink in Wellington, NZ would be intensely relaxed about local traffic on the big optical ethernet pipes, but very keen indeed to save on international transit due to the highly constrained cable infrastructure. But if you were, say, a Dutch DSL operator with incumbent backhaul, you might want to actively encourage P2Pers to fetch from external peers because international peering at AMSIX is abundant. Basically, it's bringing traffic engineering inside the access network. Alex From mhernand1 at comcast.net Tue Apr 22 07:43:07 2008 From: mhernand1 at comcast.net (manolo) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <620fd17c0804212345y27745510l2f8c937baa1e7380@mail.gmail.com> References: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> <480CF2E8.4070402@comcast.net> <620fd17c0804212345y27745510l2f8c937baa1e7380@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <480DDD5B.1060903@comcast.net> Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables would drop as well. This happened for months on end. They tried blaming our 6500, our fiber provider, our IOS version, no conclusive findings where ever found that it was our problem. After some testing at the local Cogent office by both Cogent and myself, Cogent decided that they could "make a product" that would allow us too one have only one peer and two to connect directly to the GSR and not through a small catalyst. Low and behold things worked well for some time after that. This all happened while we had 3 other providers on the same router with no issues at all. We moved gbics, ports etc around to make sure it was not some odd ASIC or throughput issue with the 6500. Hope this answers the question. Manolo Paul Wall wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM, manolo wrote: > >> I do have to say that the PSI net side of cogent is very good. We use >> them in Europe without many issues. I stay far away from the legacy >> cogent network in US. >> > > You still haven't explained the failure modes you've experienced as a > result of cogent's A/B peer configuration, only fronted. > > Inquiring minds would like to know! > > From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 07:52:22 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:52:22 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> Message-ID: > I fail to figure > out the necessary mathematics where topology information > would bring superior results compared to the usual greedy > algorithms where data is requested from the peers where it > seems to be flowing at the best rates. If local peers with > sufficient upstream bandwidth exist, majority of the data > blocks are already retrieved from them. First, it's not a mathematical issue. It is a network operational issue where ISPs have bandwidth caps and enforce them by traffic shaping when thresholds are exceeded. And secondly, there are cases where it is not in the ISP's best interest for P2P clients to retrieve files from the client with the lowest RTT. > In many locales ISP's tend to limit the available upstream on > their consumer connections, usually causing more distant bits > to be delivered instead. Yep, it's a game of whack-a-mole. > I think the most important metric to study is the number of > times the same piece of data is transmitted in a defined time > period and try to figure out how to optimize for that. Or P2P developers could stop fighting ISPs and treating the Internet as an amorphous cloud, and build something that will be optimal for the ISPs, the end users, and the network infrastructure. > The p2p world needs more high-upstream "proxies" to make it > more effective. That is essentially a cache, just like NNTP news servers or Squid web proxies. But rather than making a special P2P client that caches and proxies and fiddles with stuff, why not take all the network intelligence code out of the client and put it into a topology guru that runs in your local ISP's high-upstream infrastructure. Chances are that many ISPs will put a few P2P caching clients in the same rack as this guru if it pays them to take traffic off one direction of the last-mile, or if it pays them to ensure that files hang around locally longer than they do naturally, thus saving on their upstream/peering traffic. > Is there a problem that needs to be solved that is not solved > by Akamai's of the world already? Akamai is a commercial service that content senders can contract with to achieve the same type of multicasting (called Content Delivery Network) as a P2P network provides to end users. ISPs don't provide Akamai service to their hosting customers, but they do provide those customers with web service, mail service, FTP service, etc. I am suggesting that there is a way for ISPs to provide a generic BitTorrent P2P service to any customer who wants to send content (or receive content). It would allow heavy P2P users to evade the crude traffic shaping which tends to be off on the 1st day of the month, then gets turned on at a threshold and stays on until the end of the month. Most ISPs can afford to let users take all they can eat during non-peak hours without congesting the network. Even an Australian ISP could use this type of system because they would only open local peering connections during off-peak, not the expensive trans-oceanic links. This all hinges on a cooperative P2P client that only downloads from sites (or address ranges) which the local topology guru directs them to. Presumably the crude traffic shaping systems that cap bandwidth would still remain in place for non-cooperating P2P clients. --Michael Dillon From david at davidcoulson.net Tue Apr 22 07:52:21 2008 From: david at davidcoulson.net (David Coulson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:52:21 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <480DDD5B.1060903@comcast.net> References: <200804211954.m3LJsenD047076@aurora.sol.net> <480CF2E8.4070402@comcast.net> <620fd17c0804212345y27745510l2f8c937baa1e7380@mail.gmail.com> <480DDD5B.1060903@comcast.net> Message-ID: <480DDF85.9050403@davidcoulson.net> manolo wrote: > Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth > shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise > our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables > would drop as well. That doesn't sound like the problem has anything to do with their multihop-eBGP configuration - It just appears that whatever you were directly connected to was flaking out. If they had moved you to a directly connected BGP session and it all worked, that would be one argument, but you also moved from a junky 3550 or something to the GSR in the process. I'd argue that if the switch could handle full tables and you just had a single session, you would probably have experienced the same issue. I've ran with both direct and multihop with Cogent, and I honestly never noticed any difference in stability. I hear what you're saying, and I think you have a valid argument in some respects, but I just think the BGP problem is a symptom, not a cause. From a.harrowell at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 08:00:49 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:00:49 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> Message-ID: The good news about a DillTorrent solution is that at least the user and ISP interests are aligned; there's no reason for the ISP to have the guru lie to the users (because you just know someone'll try it). However, it does require considerable trust from the users that it will actually lead to a better experience, rather than just cost-saving at their expense. And as with any client-side solution, if you can write a client that listens to it and behaves differently you can write one that pretends to listen:-) Alex From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 08:02:21 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:02:21 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Message-ID: > Isn't TCP already measuring throughput and latency of > the network for > RTO etc.? Why not expose those parameters for peers to > the local P2P > This is where you hit a serious problem. If you implemented > that in a client, it could be much worse than naive P2P for > quite a lot of networks - for example all the UK ISPs. If you > have a bitstream/IPStream architecture, your bits get hauled > from local aggregation sites to your routers via L2TP and you > get billed by the telco for them; now, if you strictly > localise P2P traffic, all the localised bits will be > transiting the bitstream sector TWICE, drastically increasing > your costs. This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical information about the network into the decision-making process. The only way for this to work is to allow the network operator to have a role in every P2P transaction. And to do that you need a middlebox that sits in the ISP network which they can configure. In the scenario above, I would expect the network operator to ban connections to their DSL address block. Instead, they would put some P2P clients in the rack with the topology guru middlebox and direct the transactions there. Or to peers/upstreams. And the network operator would manage all the block retrieval requests from the P2P clients in order to achieve both traffic shaping (rate limiting) and to ensure that multiple local clients cooperate in retrieving unique blocks from the file to reduce total traffic from upstreams/peers. > Basically, it's bringing traffic engineering inside the > access network. Actually, bringing traffic engineering into the P2P service which is where the problem exists. Or bringing the network operator into the P2P service rather than leaving the netop as a reactive outsider. --Michael Dillon From jgreco at ns.sol.net Tue Apr 22 08:02:06 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:02:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: from "michael.dillon@bt.com" at Apr 22, 2008 11:33:44 AM Message-ID: <200804221302.m3MD268o026939@aurora.sol.net> > All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of > IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs > per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the > bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is > going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just > to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day > whether they are at home or not. The floor is littered with the discarded husks of policies about what ISP's are going to allow or disallow. "No servers", "no connection sharing", "web browsing only," "no voip," etc. These typically last only as long as the errant assumptions upon which they're based remain somewhat viable. For example, when NAT gateways and Internet Connection Sharing became widely available, trying to prohibit connection sharing went by the wayside. 8GB/day is less than a single megabit per second, and with ISP's selling ultra high speed connections (we're now able to get 7 or 15Mbps), an ISP might find it difficult to defend why they're selling a premium 15Mbps service on which a user can't get 1/15th of that. > At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single > ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast > TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. Huh? Why does IP multicast only work for that? > Everything else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at > any time. IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers > all pulling in 1000 unique streams. Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded material, but it does suggest that you could really use a TiVo-like device to make best use. A fundamental change away from "live broadcast" and streaming out a show in 1:1 realtime, to a model where everything is spooled onto the local TiVo, and then watched at a user's convenience. We don't have the capacity at the moment to really deal with 1000 subs all pulling in 1000 unique streams, but the likelihood is that we're not going to see that for some time - if ever. What seems more likely is that we'll see an evolution of more specialized offerings, possibly supplementing or even eventually replacing the tiered channel package offerings of your typical cable company, since it's pretty clear that a-la-carte channel selection isn't likely to happen soon. That may allow some "less popular" channels to come into being. I happen to like holding up SciFi as an example, because their current operations are significantly different than originally conceived, and they're now producing significant quantities of their own original material. It's possible that we could see a much larger number of these sorts of ventures (which would terrify legacy television networks even further). The biggest challenge that I would expect from a network point of view is the potential for vast amounts of decentralization. For example, there's low-key stuff such as the "Star Trek: Hidden Frontier" series of fanfic- based video projects. There are almost certainly enough fans out there that you'd see a small surge in viewership if the material was more readily accessible (read that as: automatically downloaded to your TiVo). That could encourage others to do the same in more quantity. These are all low-volume data sources, and yet taken as a whole, they could represent a fairly difficult problem were everyone to be doing it. It is not just tech geeks that are going to be able produce video, as the stuff becomes more accessible (see: YouTube), we may see stuff like mini soap operas, home & garden shows, local sporting events, local politics, etc. I'm envisioning a scenario where we may find that there are a few tens of thousands of PTA meetings each being uploaded routinely onto the home PC's of whoever recorded the local meeting, and then made available to the small number of interested parties who might then watch, where (0 As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube. While it might be nice to multicast that sort of data, it's a relative trickle of data, and I'll bet that the majority of users have not only not visited a market data site this week, but have actually never done so. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From mmc at internode.com.au Tue Apr 22 08:12:57 2008 From: mmc at internode.com.au (Matthew Moyle-Croft) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:12:57 +0900 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Message-ID: <480DE459.3020007@internode.com.au> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > ... > You need a way to insert non-technical > information about the network into the decision-making process. > The only way for this to work is to allow the network operator > to have a role in every P2P transaction. And to do that you need > a middlebox that sits in the ISP network which they can configure. > You could probably do this with a variant of DNS. Use an Anycast address common to everyone to solve the discovery problem. Client sends a DNS request for a TXT record for, as an example, 148.165.32.217.p2ptopology.org. The topology box looks at the IP address that the request came from and does some magic based on the requested information and returns a ranking score based on that (maybe 0-255 worse to best) that the client can then use to rank where it downloads from. (might have to run DNS on another port so that normal resolvers don't capture this). The great thing is that you can use it for other things. MMC -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes From a.harrowell at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 08:17:17 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:17:17 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, wrote: > In the scenario above, I would expect the network operator to ban > connections to their DSL address block. Instead, they would put > some P2P clients in the rack with the topology guru middlebox > and direct the transactions there. Or to peers/upstreams. Don't know about the word "ban"; what we need is more like BGP than DRM. Ideally, we want the clients to do sensible things because it works best, not because they are being coerced. Further, once you start banning things you get into all kinds of problems; not least that interests are no longer aligned and trust is violated. If DillTorrent is working well with a localpref metric of -1 (where 0 is the free-running condition with neither local or distant preference) there shouldn't be any traffic within the DSL pool anyway, without coercion. There is obvious synergy with CDNs here. Alex From mmc at internode.com.au Tue Apr 22 08:24:34 2008 From: mmc at internode.com.au (Matthew Moyle-Croft) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:24:34 +0900 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <480DE459.3020007@internode.com.au> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> <480DE459.3020007@internode.com.au> Message-ID: <480DE712.3080906@internode.com.au> (I know, replying to your own email is sad ...) > You could probably do this with a variant of DNS. Use an Anycast > address common to everyone to solve the discovery problem. Client > sends a DNS request for a TXT record for, as an example, > 148.165.32.217.p2ptopology.org. The topology box looks at the IP > address that the request came from and does some magic based on the > requested information and returns a ranking score based on that (maybe > 0-255 worse to best) that the client can then use to rank where it > downloads from. (might have to run DNS on another port so that normal > resolvers don't capture this). > > The great thing is that you can use it for other things. > Since this could be dynamic (I'm guessing BGP and other things like SNMP feeding the topology box) you could then use it to balance traffic flows through your network to avoid congestion on certain links - that's a win for everyone. You could get webbrowsers to look at it when you've got multiple A records to chose which one is best for things like Flash video etc. MMC -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes From a.harrowell at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 08:27:22 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:27:22 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <200804221302.m3MD268o026939@aurora.sol.net> References: <200804221302.m3MD268o026939@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube. > > While it might be nice to multicast that sort of data, it's a relative > trickle of data, and I'll bet that the majority of users have not only > not visited a market data site this week, but have actually never done > so. As if most financial (and other mega-dataset) data was on consumer Web sites. Think pricing feeds off stock exchange back-office systems. From a.harrowell at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 08:28:58 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <480DE712.3080906@internode.com.au> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> <480DE459.3020007@internode.com.au> <480DE712.3080906@internode.com.au> Message-ID: NCAP - Network Capability (or Cost) Announcement Protocol. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: > (I know, replying to your own email is sad ...) > > You could probably do this with a variant of DNS. Use an Anycast > > address common to everyone to solve the discovery problem. Client > > sends a DNS request for a TXT record for, as an example, > > 148.165.32.217.p2ptopology.org. The topology box looks at the IP > > address that the request came from and does some magic based on the > > requested information and returns a ranking score based on that (maybe > > 0-255 worse to best) that the client can then use to rank where it > > downloads from. (might have to run DNS on another port so that normal > > resolvers don't capture this). > > > > The great thing is that you can use it for other things. > > > Since this could be dynamic (I'm guessing BGP and other things like SNMP > feeding the topology box) you could then use it to balance traffic flows > through your network to avoid congestion on certain links - that's a win > for everyone. You could get webbrowsers to look at it when you've got > multiple A records to chose which one is best for things like Flash > video etc. > > MMC > > -- > Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks > Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia > Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net > Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 > Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 > > "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, > but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From mmc at internode.com.au Tue Apr 22 08:32:12 2008 From: mmc at internode.com.au (Matthew Moyle-Croft) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:32:12 +0900 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> <480DE459.3020007@internode.com.au> <480DE712.3080906@internode.com.au> Message-ID: <480DE8DC.7000000@internode.com.au> SNSP = Simple Network Selection Protocol Alexander Harrowell wrote: > NCAP - Network Capability (or Cost) Announcement Protocol. > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft > > wrote: > > (I know, replying to your own email is sad ...) > > You could probably do this with a variant of DNS. Use an Anycast > > address common to everyone to solve the discovery problem. Client > > sends a DNS request for a TXT record for, as an example, > > 148.165.32.217.p2ptopology.org > . The topology box looks > at the IP > > address that the request came from and does some magic based on the > > requested information and returns a ranking score based on that > (maybe > > 0-255 worse to best) that the client can then use to rank where it > > downloads from. (might have to run DNS on another port so that > normal > > resolvers don't capture this). > > > > The great thing is that you can use it for other things. > > > Since this could be dynamic (I'm guessing BGP and other things > like SNMP > feeding the topology box) you could then use it to balance traffic > flows > through your network to avoid congestion on certain links - that's > a win > for everyone. You could get webbrowsers to look at it when > you've got > multiple A records to chose which one is best for things like Flash > video etc. > > MMC > > -- > Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks > Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia > Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: > http://www.on.net > Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 > Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 > > "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, > but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes From jgreco at ns.sol.net Tue Apr 22 08:33:55 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:33:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <480DDD5B.1060903@comcast.net> from "manolo" at Apr 22, 2008 08:43:07 AM Message-ID: <200804221333.m3MDXthe028748@aurora.sol.net> > Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth > shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise > our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables > would drop as well. This happened for months on end. They tried blaming > our 6500, our fiber provider, our IOS version, no conclusive findings > where ever found that it was our problem. After some testing at the > local Cogent office by both Cogent and myself, Cogent decided that they > could "make a product" that would allow us too one have only one peer > and two to connect directly to the GSR and not through a small catalyst. > Low and behold things worked well for some time after that. > > This all happened while we had 3 other providers on the same router > with no issues at all. We moved gbics, ports etc around to make sure it > was not some odd ASIC or throughput issue with the 6500. Perhaps you haven't considered this, but did it ever occur to you that Cogent probably had the same situation? They had a router with a bunch of other customers on it, no reported problems, and you were the oddball reporting significant issues? Quite frankly, your own description does not support this as being a problem inherent to the peerA/peerB setup. You indicate that the peer advertising your routes would drop. The peer with the full BGP tables would then drop as well. Well, quite frankly, that makes complete sense. The peer advertising your routes also advertises to you the route to get to the multihop peer, which you need in order to be able to talk to that. Therefore, if the directly connected BGP goes away for any reason, the multihop is likely to go away too. However, given the exact same hardware minus the multihop, your direct BGP was still dropping. So had they been able to send you a full table from the aggregation router, the same thing probably would have happened. This sounds more like flaky hardware, dirty optics, or a bad cable (or several of the above). Given that, it actually seems quite reasonable to me to guess that it could have been your 6500, your fiber provider, or your IOS version that was introducing some problem. Anyone who has done any reasonable amount of work in this business will have seen all three, and many of the people here will say that the 6500 is a bit flaky and touchy when pushed into service as a real router (while simultaneously using them in their networks as such, heh, since nothing else really touches the price per port), so Cogent's suggestion that it was a problem on your side may have been based on bad experiences with other customer 6500's. However, it is also likely that it was some other mundane problem, or a problem with the same items on Cogent's side. I would consider it a shame that Cogent didn't work more closely with you to track down the specific issue, because most of the time, these things can be isolated and eliminated, rather than being potentially left around to mess up someone in the future (think: bad port). ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From jgreco at ns.sol.net Tue Apr 22 08:44:49 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:44:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: from "Alexander Harrowell" at Apr 22, 2008 02:27:22 PM Message-ID: <200804221344.m3MDioQm029053@aurora.sol.net> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > > > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > > > You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube. > > > > While it might be nice to multicast that sort of data, it's a relative > > trickle of data, and I'll bet that the majority of users have not only > > not visited a market data site this week, but have actually never done > > so. > > As if most financial (and other mega-dataset) data was on consumer Web > sites. Think pricing feeds off stock exchange back-office systems. Oh, you got my point. Good. :-) This isn't a killer application for IP multicast, at least not on the public Internet. High volume bits that are not busily traversing a hundred thousand last-mile residential connections are probably not the bits that are going to pose a serious challenge for network operators, or at least, that's my take on things. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Tue Apr 22 08:54:16 2008 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:54:16 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Message-ID: <20080422135416.GB32071@nic.fr> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote a message of 46 lines which said: > This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software > cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical > information about the network into the decision-making process. It's strange that noone in this thread mentioned P4P yet. Isn't there someone involved in P4P at Nanog? http://www.dcia.info/activities/p4pwg/ IMHO, the biggest issue with P4P is the one mentioned by Alexander Harrowell. After that users have been s.....d up so many times by some ISPs, will they trust this service? From bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Tue Apr 22 09:05:58 2008 From: bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu (Bruce Curtis) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:05:58 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com><20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org><20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net><20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <8E53CF90-D366-4C36-A6F2-151E417000F1@ndsu.edu> p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could also be delivered via multicast overnight. http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp http://kazam.com/Eng/About/About.jsp On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:33 AM, wrote: > >>> I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, >> MPEG4 SD is >>> around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on >>> how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. >> >> Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. > > So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? > Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? > Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and > transmit that? > > I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to > subscribers > but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never > touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with > TV > receivers in their head ends. > > All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of > IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs > per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the > bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is > going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just > to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day > whether > they are at home or not. > > At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single > ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live > broadcast > TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. > Everything > else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP > multicast > does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 > unique > streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could > deliver > the > same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big > melting > pot. But that day is long gone. > > On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video > files > during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation > between > P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which > can > be told > to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the > other > side > of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager > could > arrange > for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering > circuit during > the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then > distribute > elsewhere. > > --Michael Dillon > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > *NOT* video, > it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > --- Bruce Curtis bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527 North Dakota State University From a.harrowell at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 09:10:28 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:10:28 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <20080422135416.GB32071@nic.fr> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <20080422214324.9f6429f8.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> <20080422135416.GB32071@nic.fr> Message-ID: Personally I consider P4P a big step forward; it's good to see Big Verizon engaging with these issues in a non-coercive fashion. Just to braindump a moment, it strikes me that it would be very useful to be able to announce preference metrics by netblock (for example, to deal with networks with varied internal cost metrics or to pref-in the CDN servers) but also risky. If that was done, client developers would be well advised to implement a check that the announcing network actually owns the netblock they are either preffing in (to send traffic via a suboptimal route/through a spook box of some kind/onto someone else's pain-point) or out (to restrict traffic from reaching somewhere); you wouldn't want a hijack, whether malicious or clue-deficient. There is every reason to encourage the use of dynamic preference. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100, > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote > a message of 46 lines which said: > > > This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software > > cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical > > information about the network into the decision-making process. > > It's strange that noone in this thread mentioned P4P yet. Isn't there > someone involved in P4P at Nanog? > > http://www.dcia.info/activities/p4pwg/ > > IMHO, the biggest issue with P4P is the one mentioned by Alexander > Harrowell. After that users have been s.....d up so many times by some > ISPs, will they trust this service? > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From marc at let.de Tue Apr 22 09:15:19 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <8E53CF90-D366-4C36-A6F2-151E417000F1@ndsu.edu> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com><20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org><20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net><20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> <8E53CF90-D366-4C36-A6F2-151E417000F1@ndsu.edu> Message-ID: <8BA65CC8-0F19-4A0E-B279-D4F4EA119944@let.de> Am 22.04.2008 um 16:05 schrieb Bruce Curtis: > p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could > also be delivered via multicast overnight. > > http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp > > http://kazam.com/Eng/About/About.jsp hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist uselese for VOD , correct ? marc From mhernand1 at comcast.net Tue Apr 22 09:22:48 2008 From: mhernand1 at comcast.net (manolo) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:22:48 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: <200804221333.m3MDXthe028748@aurora.sol.net> References: <200804221333.m3MDXthe028748@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: <480DF4B8.8080404@comcast.net> Well it also was the total arrogance on the part of Cogent engineering and management taking zero responsibility and pushing it back everytime valid issue or not. You had to be there. But everyone has a different opinion, my opinion is set regardless of what cogent tries to sell me now. Manolo Joe Greco wrote: >> Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth >> shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise >> our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables >> would drop as well. This happened for months on end. They tried blaming >> our 6500, our fiber provider, our IOS version, no conclusive findings >> where ever found that it was our problem. After some testing at the >> local Cogent office by both Cogent and myself, Cogent decided that they >> could "make a product" that would allow us too one have only one peer >> and two to connect directly to the GSR and not through a small catalyst. >> Low and behold things worked well for some time after that. >> >> This all happened while we had 3 other providers on the same router >> with no issues at all. We moved gbics, ports etc around to make sure it >> was not some odd ASIC or throughput issue with the 6500. >> > > Perhaps you haven't considered this, but did it ever occur to you that > Cogent probably had the same situation? They had a router with a bunch > of other customers on it, no reported problems, and you were the oddball > reporting significant issues? > > Quite frankly, your own description does not support this as being a > problem inherent to the peerA/peerB setup. > > You indicate that the peer advertising your routes would drop. The peer > with the full BGP tables would then drop as well. Well, quite frankly, > that makes complete sense. The peer advertising your routes also > advertises to you the route to get to the multihop peer, which you need > in order to be able to talk to that. Therefore, if the directly connected > BGP goes away for any reason, the multihop is likely to go away too. > > However, given the exact same hardware minus the multihop, your direct > BGP was still dropping. So had they been able to send you a full table > from the aggregation router, the same thing probably would have happened. > > This sounds more like flaky hardware, dirty optics, or a bad cable (or > several of the above). > > Given that, it actually seems quite reasonable to me to guess that it > could have been your 6500, your fiber provider, or your IOS version that > was introducing some problem. Anyone who has done any reasonable amount > of work in this business will have seen all three, and many of the people > here will say that the 6500 is a bit flaky and touchy when pushed into > service as a real router (while simultaneously using them in their > networks as such, heh, since nothing else really touches the price per > port), so Cogent's suggestion that it was a problem on your side may have > been based on bad experiences with other customer 6500's. > > However, it is also likely that it was some other mundane problem, or a > problem with the same items on Cogent's side. I would consider it a > shame that Cogent didn't work more closely with you to track down the > specific issue, because most of the time, these things can be isolated > and eliminated, rather than being potentially left around to mess up > someone in the future (think: bad port). > > ... JG > From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 09:41:27 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:41:27 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <200804221302.m3MD268o026939@aurora.sol.net> References: from "michael.dillon@bt.com" at Apr 22, 2008 11:33:44 AM <200804221302.m3MD268o026939@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: > > IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers > > all pulling in 1000 unique streams. > > Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that > multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded > material, but it does suggest that you could really use a > TiVo-like device to make best use. You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? Or Squid? Or an NNTP server? Is video so different from other content? Considering the volume of video that currently traverses P2P networks I really don't see that there is any need for an IP multicast solution except for news feeds and video conferencing. > What seems more likely is that we'll see an evolution of more > specialized offerings, Yes. The overall trend has been to increasingly split the market into smaller slivers with additional choices being added and older ones still available. During the shift to digital broadcasting in the UK, we retained the free-to-air services with more channels than we had on analog. Satellite continued to grow in diversity and now there is even a Freesat service coming online. Cable TV is still there although now it is usually bundled with broadband Internet as well as telephone service. You can access the Internet over your mobile phone using GPRS, or 3G and wifi is spreading slowly but surely. But one thing that does not change is the number of hours in the day. Every service competes for scarce attention spans, and a more-or-less fixed portion of people's disposable income. Based on this, I don't expect to see any really huge changes. > That may allow some "less popular" channels to come into > being. YouTube et al. > I happen to like holding up SciFi as an example, > because their current operations are significantly different > than originally conceived, and they're now producing > significant quantities of their own original material. The cost to film and to edit video content has dropped dramatically over the past decade. The SciFi channel is the tip of a very big iceberg. And what about immigrants? Even 50 years ago, immigrants to the USA joined a bigger melting pot culture and integrated slowly but surely. Nowadays, they have cheap phonecalls back home, the same Internet content as the folks back home, and P2P to get the TV shows and movies that people are watching back home. How is any US channel-based system going to handle that diversity and variety? > There are almost certainly enough fans out > there that you'd see a small surge in viewership if the > material was more readily accessible (read that as: > automatically downloaded to your TiVo). Is that so different from P2P video? In any case, the Tivo model is limited to the small amount of content, all commercial, that they can classify so that Tivo downloads the right stuff. P2P allows you to do the classification, but it is still automatically downloaded while you sleep. > I'm envisioning a scenario where we may find that there are a > few tens of thousands of PTA meetings each being uploaded > routinely onto the home PC's of whoever recorded the local > meeting, and then made available to the small number of > interested parties who might then watch, where (0 I don't pretend to have the answers > to this, but I do feel reasonably certain that the success of > YouTube is not a fluke, and that we're going to see more, not > less, of this sort of thing. Agreed. > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance > and YouTube. Actually, Yahoo! Finance is only one single subscriber to these market data feeds. My company happens to run an IP network supporting global multicast, which delivers the above market data feeds, and many others, to over 10,000 customers in over 50 countries. Market data feeds are not a mass market consumer product but they are a realtime firehose of data that people want to receive right now and not a microsecond later. It is not unusual for our sales team to receive RFPs that specify latency times that are faster than the speed of light. The point is that IP multicast is probably the only way to deliver this data because we cannot afford the additional latency to send packets into a server and back again. I.e. a CDN type of solution won't work. It's not only nice to multicast this data, it is mission critical. People are risking millions of dollars every hour based on the data in these feeds. The way it usually works (pioneered by NYSE I believe) is that they send two copies of every packet through two separate multicast trees. If there is too much time differential between the arrival of the two packets then the service puts up a warning flag so that the traders know their data is stale. Add a few more milliseconds and it shuts down entirely because the data is now entirely useless. When latency is this important, those copies going to multiple subscribers have to be copied in the packet-forwarding device, i.e. router supporting IP multicast. Of course consumer video doesn't have the same strict latency requirements, therefore my opinion that IP multicast is unneeded complexity. Use the best tool for the job. --Michael Dillon From jmatthews at cia.com Tue Apr 22 09:44:07 2008 From: jmatthews at cia.com (Jake Matthews) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Anyone know how I can contact uky.edu abuse? Message-ID: <480DF9B7.8000400@cia.com> I've tried from 4-5 different mail providers to send something to abuse at uky.edu. Can't figure out what's wrong, as I've never seen AuthRequired anywhere before. Every single one of them has gotten the reply of: *Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:* abuselist at email.uky.edu Your message wasn't delivered because of security policies. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Generating server: ad.uky.edu abuselist at email.uky.edu #550 5.7.1 RESOLVER.RST.AuthRequired; authentication required ##rfc822;dl_abuselist at email.uky.edu From laird at pando.com Tue Apr 22 09:48:59 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Message-ID: <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> This raises an interesting issue - should optimization of p2p traffic (P4P) be based on "static" network information, or "dynamic" network information. It's certainly easier for ISP's to provide a simple network map that real-time network condition data, but the real-time data might be much more effective. Or even if it's not real-time, perhaps there could be "static" network maps reflecting conditions at different times of day? Since P4P came up, I'd like to mention that the P4P Working Group is putting together another field test, where we can quantify issues like the tradeoff between static and dynamic network data, and we would love to hear from any ISP's that would be interested in participating in that test. If you'd like the details of what it would take to participate, and what data you would get out of it, please email me. Of course, independently of the test, if you're interested in participating in the P4P Working Group, we'd love to hear from you! - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks email: laird at pando.com mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Harrowell" To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" Cc: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10:28 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] Personally I consider P4P a big step forward; it's good to see Big Verizon engaging with these issues in a non-coercive fashion. Just to braindump a moment, it strikes me that it would be very useful to be able to announce preference metrics by netblock (for example, to deal with networks with varied internal cost metrics or to pref-in the CDN servers) but also risky. If that was done, client developers would be well advised to implement a check that the announcing network actually owns the netblock they are either preffing in (to send traffic via a suboptimal route/through a spook box of some kind/onto someone else's pain-point) or out (to restrict traffic from reaching somewhere); you wouldn't want a hijack, whether malicious or clue-deficient. There is every reason to encourage the use of dynamic preference. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100, > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote > a message of 46 lines which said: > > > This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software > > cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical > > information about the network into the decision-making process. > > It's strange that noone in this thread mentioned P4P yet. Isn't there > someone involved in P4P at Nanog? > > http://www.dcia.info/activities/p4pwg/ > > IMHO, the biggest issue with P4P is the one mentioned by Alexander > Harrowell. After that users have been s.....d up so many times by some > ISPs, will they trust this service? > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Tue Apr 22 09:49:53 2008 From: bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu (Bruce Curtis) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:49:53 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <8BA65CC8-0F19-4A0E-B279-D4F4EA119944@let.de> References: <20080420.213351.20000.0@webmail21.vgs.untd.com><20080421115022.H95771@sprockets.gibbard.org><20080421194314.GE1439925@hiwaay.net><20080421195739.GE10920@virtual.bogons.net> <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> <8E53CF90-D366-4C36-A6F2-151E417000F1@ndsu.edu> <8BA65CC8-0F19-4A0E-B279-D4F4EA119944@let.de> Message-ID: <498309A2-493D-4CF6-BEC1-1E7BD352EE6B@ndsu.edu> On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Marc Manthey wrote: > Am 22.04.2008 um 16:05 schrieb Bruce Curtis: > >> p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could >> also be delivered via multicast overnight. >> >> http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp >> >> http://kazam.com/Eng/About/About.jsp > > > hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist uselese for VOD , > correct ? > > > marc Michael said the same thing "Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV." and then mentioned that p2p could be used to download content during off-peak hours. Kazam is a beta test that uses Intercast's technology to download content overnight to a users PC via multicast. My point was p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, multicast could also be used to do that, and in fact at least one company is exploring that option. The example seemed to fit in well with the other examples in the the thread that mentioned TiVo type devices recording content for later viewing on demand. I agree that multicast can be used for live TV and others have mentioned the multicasting of the BBC and www.ostn.tv is another example of live multicasting. However since TiVo type devices today record broadcast content for later viewing on demand there could certainly be devices that record multicast content for later viewing on demand. --- Bruce Curtis bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527 North Dakota State University From jtk at ultradns.net Tue Apr 22 09:54:50 2008 From: jtk at ultradns.net (John Kristoff) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:54:50 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] Anyone know how I can contact uky.edu abuse? In-Reply-To: <480DF9B7.8000400@cia.com> References: <480DF9B7.8000400@cia.com> Message-ID: <200804221454.m3MEspFI008812@larry.centergate.com> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:44:07 -0400 Jake Matthews wrote: > I've tried from 4-5 different mail providers to send something to > abuse at uky.edu. > Can't figure out what's wrong, as I've never seen AuthRequired anywhere > before. If it is security related, I highly recommend you forward you concern directly to ren-isac at ren-isac.net. In a nutshell, REN-ISAC is a highly regarded entity that helps coordinate and communicate within the research and education community pertaining to info security related matters. See their web page for further details. In many cases where default email aliases are broken or an institution seems unresponsive, they have a way to get someone's attention at even the smallest and most removed sites. John From michael.holstein at csuohio.edu Tue Apr 22 10:20:55 2008 From: michael.holstein at csuohio.edu (Michael Holstein) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:20:55 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Anyone know how I can contact uky.edu abuse? In-Reply-To: <480DF9B7.8000400@cia.com> References: <480DF9B7.8000400@cia.com> Message-ID: <480E0257.30407@csuohio.edu> Try the voice route .. their helpdesk is (859) 257-1300 Cheers, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University > I've tried from 4-5 different mail providers to send something to > abuse at uky.edu. > Can't figure out what's wrong, as I've never seen AuthRequired anywhere > before. > > > Every single one of them has gotten the reply of: > > *Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:* > > abuselist at email.uky.edu > Your message wasn't delivered because of security policies. Microsoft > Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please provide > the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 > > Generating server: ad.uky.edu > > abuselist at email.uky.edu > #550 5.7.1 RESOLVER.RST.AuthRequired; authentication required > ##rfc822;dl_abuselist at email.uky.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > From jgreco at ns.sol.net Tue Apr 22 11:47:02 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:47:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: from "michael.dillon@bt.com" at Apr 22, 2008 03:41:27 PM Message-ID: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> > > > IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers > > > all pulling in 1000 unique streams. > > > > Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that > > multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded > > material, but it does suggest that you could really use a > > TiVo-like device to make best use. > > You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing > clients? Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of television on? Especially now that it's pretty common to have large, flat screen TV's, and watching TV even on a 24" monitor feels like a throwback to the '80's? How about the one that's shaped like a TiVo and has a built-in remote control, sane operating software, can be readily purchased and set up by a non-techie, and is known to work well? I remember all the fuss about how people would be making phone calls using VoIP and their computers. Yet most of the time, I see VoIP consumers transforming VoIP to legacy POTS, or VoIP hardphones, or stuff like that. I'm going to make a guess and take a stab and say that people are going to prefer to keep their TV's somewhat more TV- like. > Or Squid? Or an NNTP server? Speaking as someone who's run the largest Squid and news server deployments in this region, I think I can safely say - no. It's certainly fine to note that both Squid and NNTP have elements that deal with transferring large amounts of data, and that fundamentally similar elements could play a role in the distribution model, but I see no serious role for those at the set-top level. > Is video so different from other content? Considering the > volume of video that currently traverses P2P networks I really > don't see that there is any need for an IP multicast solution > except for news feeds and video conferencing. Wow. Okay. I'll just say, then, that such a position seems a bit naive, and I suspect that broadband networks are going to be crying about the sheer stresses on their networks, when moderate numbers of people begin to upload videos into their TiVo, which then share them with other TiVo's owned by their friends around town, or across an ocean, while also downloading a variety of shows from a dozen off-net sources, etc. I really see the any-to-any situation as being somewhat hard on networks, but if you believe that not to be the case, um, I'm listening, I guess. > > What seems more likely is that we'll see an evolution of more > > specialized offerings, > > Yes. The overall trend has been to increasingly split the market > into smaller slivers with additional choices being added and older > ones still available. Yes, but that's still a broadcast model. We're talking about an evolution (potentially _r_evolution) of technology where the broadcast model itself is altered. > During the shift to digital broadcasting in > the UK, we retained the free-to-air services with more channels > than we had on analog. Satellite continued to grow in diversity and > now there is even a Freesat service coming online. Cable TV is still > there although now it is usually bundled with broadband Internet as > well as telephone service. You can access the Internet over your mobile > phone using GPRS, or 3G and wifi is spreading slowly but surely. Yes. > But one thing that does not change is the number of hours in the day. > Every service competes for scarce attention spans, Yes. However, some things that do change: 1) Broadband speeds continue to increase, making it possible for more content to be transferred 2) Hard drives continue to grow, and the ability to store more, combined with higher bit rates (HD, less artifact, whatever) means that more bits can be transferred to fill the same amount of time 3) Devices such as TiVo are capable of downloading large amounts of material on a speculative basis, even on days where #hrs-tv-watched == 0. I suspect that this effect may be a bit worse as more diversity appears, because instead of hitting stop during a 30-second YouTube clip, you're now hitting delete 15 seconds into a 30-minute InterneTiVo'd show. I bet I can clear out a few hours worth of not-that-great programming in 5 minutes... > and a more-or-less > fixed portion of people's disposable income. Based on this, I don't > expect to see any really huge changes. That's fair enough. That's optimistic (from a network operator's point of view.) I'm afraid that such changes will happen, however. > > That may allow some "less popular" channels to come into > > being. > > YouTube et al. The problem with that is that there's money to be had, and if you let YouTube host your video, it's YouTube getting the juicy ad money. An essential quality of the Internet is the ability to eliminate the middleman, so even if YouTube has invented itself as a new middleman, that's primarily because it is kind of a new thing, and we do not yet have ways for the average user to easily serve video clips a different way. That will almost certainly change. > > I happen to like holding up SciFi as an example, > > because their current operations are significantly different > > than originally conceived, and they're now producing > > significant quantities of their own original material. > > The cost to film and to edit video content has dropped > dramatically over the past decade. The SciFi channel is the > tip of a very big iceberg. And what about immigrants? Even > 50 years ago, immigrants to the USA joined a bigger melting > pot culture and integrated slowly but surely. Nowadays, > they have cheap phonecalls back home, the same Internet content > as the folks back home, and P2P to get the TV shows and movies > that people are watching back home. How is any US channel-based > system going to handle that diversity and variety? Well, that's the point I'm making. It isn't, and we're going to see SOMEONE look at this wonderful Internet thingy and see in it a way to "solve" this problem, which is going to turn into an operational nightmare as traffic loads increase, and a larger percentage of users start to either try to use the bandwidth they're being "sold," or actually demand it. > > There are almost certainly enough fans out > > there that you'd see a small surge in viewership if the > > material was more readily accessible (read that as: > > automatically downloaded to your TiVo). > > Is that so different from P2P video? In any case, the Tivo model > is limited to the small amount of content, all commercial, that > they can classify so that Tivo downloads the right stuff. P2P > allows you to do the classification, but it is still automatically > downloaded while you sleep. I guess I'm saying that I would not expect this to remain this way indefinitely. To be clear, I don't necessarily mean the current TiVo device or company, I'm referring to a TiVo-like device that is your personal video assistant. I'd like to think that the folks over at TiVo be the one to leverage this sort of thing, but that's about it. This could come from anywhere. Slingbox comes to mind as one possibility. > > I'm envisioning a scenario where we may find that there are a > > few tens of thousands of PTA meetings each being uploaded > > routinely onto the home PC's of whoever recorded the local > > meeting, and then made available to the small number of > > interested parties who might then watch, where (0 > Any reason why YouTube can't do this today? Primarily because I'm looking towards the future, and there are many situations where YouTube isn't going to be the answer. For example, consider the PTA meeting: I'm not sure if YouTube is going to want to be dealing with maybe 10,000 videos that are each an hour or two long which are watched by maybe a handful of people, at however frequently your local PTA meetings get held. Becuase there's a lot of PTA's. And the meetings can be long. Further, it's a perfect situation where you're likely to be able to keep a portion of the traffic on-net through geolocality effects. Of course, I'm assuming some technology exists, possibly in the upcoming fictional Microsoft Whoopta OS, that makes local publication and serving of video easy to do. If there's a demand, we will probably see it. > Remember the human > element. People don't necessarily study the field of possibilities > and them make the optimal choice. That's the argument to discuss this now rather than later. > Usually, they just pick what is > familiar as long as it is good enough. Click onto a YouTube video, > then click the pause button, then go cook supper. After you eat, > go back and press the play button. To the end user, this is much > the same experience as P2P, or programming a PVR to record an > interesting program that broadcasts at an awkward time. I would say that it is very much NOT the same experience as programming a PVR. I watch exceedingly little video on the computer, for example. I simply prefer the TV. And if more than one person's going to watch, it *has* to be on the TV (at least here). > > I don't pretend to have the answers > > to this, but I do feel reasonably certain that the success of > > YouTube is not a fluke, and that we're going to see more, not > > less, of this sort of thing. > > Agreed. > > > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is > > > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. > > > > You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance > > and YouTube. > > Actually, Yahoo! Finance is only one single subscriber to these market > data feeds. My company happens to run an IP network supporting global > multicast, which delivers the above market data feeds, and many others, > to over 10,000 customers in over 50 countries. Market data feeds are not > a mass market consumer product but they are a realtime firehose of data > that people want to receive right now and not a microsecond later. It is > not unusual for our sales team to receive RFPs that specify latency > times > that are faster than the speed of light. The point is that IP multicast > is probably the only way to deliver this data because we cannot afford > the > additional latency to send packets into a server and back again. I.e. a > CDN > type of solution won't work. > > It's not only nice to multicast this data, it is mission critical. > People are risking millions of dollars every hour based on the data in > these > feeds. The way it usually works (pioneered by NYSE I believe) is that > they send two copies of every packet through two separate multicast > trees. If there is too much time differential between the arrival of the > two > packets then the service puts up a warning flag so that the traders know > their data > is stale. Add a few more milliseconds and it shuts down entirely because > the data > is now entirely useless. When latency is this important, those copies > going > to multiple subscribers have to be copied in the packet-forwarding > device, > i.e. router supporting IP multicast. > > Of course consumer video doesn't have the same strict latency > requirements, > therefore my opinion that IP multicast is unneeded complexity. Use the > best > tool for the job. There are lots of things that multicast can be used for, and there's no question that financial data could be useful that way. However, what I'm saying is that this isn't particularly relevant on the public Internet in a general way. The thing that's going to kill networks isn't the presence or absence of the data you're talking about, because as a rule anybody who needs data in the sort of fashion you're talking about is capable of buying sufficient guaranteed network capacity to deal with it. I could just as easily say that the killer application for IP multicast is routing protocols such as OSPF, because that's probably just as relevant (in a different way) as what you're talking about. But both are distractions. What I'm concerned about are things that are going to cause major networks to have difficulties. Given this discussion, this almost certainly requires you to involve circuits where oversubscription is a key component in the product strategy. That probably means residential broadband connections, which are responsible for a huge share of the global Internet's traffic. My uninformed guess would be that there are more of those broadband connections than there are attachments to your global multicast n etwork. Maybe even by an order of magnitude. :-) ;-) Multicast may or may not be the solution to the problem at hand, but from a distribution point of view, multicast and intelligent caching share some qualities that are desirable. To write off multicast as being at least a potential part of the solution, just because the application is less critical than your financial transactions, may be premature. I see a lot of value in having content only arrive on-net once, and multicast could be a way to help that happen. The real problem is that neither your financial transactions nor any meaningful amount of video are able to transit multicast across random parts of the public Internet, which is a bit of a sticking point. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From adrian at creative.net.au Tue Apr 22 12:13:41 2008 From: adrian at creative.net.au (Adrian Chadd) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:13:41 +0800 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <8BA65CC8-0F19-4A0E-B279-D4F4EA119944@let.de> References: <20080421201216.GF1439925@hiwaay.net> <8E53CF90-D366-4C36-A6F2-151E417000F1@ndsu.edu> <8BA65CC8-0F19-4A0E-B279-D4F4EA119944@let.de> Message-ID: <20080422171339.GD1393@skywalker.creative.net.au> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008, Marc Manthey wrote: > hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist uselese for VOD , > correct ? As a delivery mechanism to end-users? Sure. As a way of feeding content to edge boxes which then serve VOD? Maybe not so useless. But then, its been years since I toyed with IP over satellite to feed ${STUFF}.. :) Adrian From jabley at ca.afilias.info Tue Apr 22 12:45:19 2008 From: jabley at ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:45:19 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: >> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing >> clients? > > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of > television on? Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma screen in the living room? Or one of the many stereo-component-styled "media" PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because people want to hook their computers up to televisions? Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB from the PC in the other room? Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) Joe From brandon.galbraith at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 12:51:27 2008 From: brandon.galbraith at gmail.com (Brandon Galbraith) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:51:27 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: <366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> On 4/22/08, Joe Abley wrote: > > > On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: > > >> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing > >> clients? > > > > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of > > television on? > > > Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma > screen in the living room? Or one of the many stereo-component-styled > "media" PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows > MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because people want > to hook their computers up to televisions? > > Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB > from the PC in the other room? > > Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the > back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) Don't forget the laptop or thin desktop hooked up to the 24-60 inch monitor in the bedroom/living room to watch Netflix Watch It Now content (which there is no limit on how much can be viewed by a customer). -brandon From Marc.Williams at neustar.biz Tue Apr 22 13:14:04 2008 From: Marc.Williams at neustar.biz (Williams, Marc) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> <366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The OSCAR is the first H.264 encoder appliance designed by HaiVision specifically for QuickTime environments. It natively supports the RTSP streaming media protocol. The OSCAR can stream directly to QuickTime supporting up to full D1 resolution (full standard definition resolution or 720 x 480 NTSC / 576 PAL) at video bit rates up to 1.5 Mbps. The OSCAR supports either multicast or unicast RTSP sessions. With either, up to 10 separate destination streams can be generated by a single OSCAR encoder (more at lower bit rates). So, on a college campus for example, this simple, compact, rugged appliance can be placed virtually anywhere and with a simple network connection can stream video to any QuickTime client on the local network or over the WAN. If more than 10 QuickTime clients need to view or access the video, the OSCAR can be directed to a QuickTime Streaming Server which can typically host well over 1000 clients > -----Original Message----- > From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:brandon.galbraith at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:51 PM > To: Joe Abley > Cc: nanog at nanog.org; Joe Greco > Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > On 4/22/08, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > > > On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: > > > > >> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? > > > > > > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large > quantities of > > > television on? > > > > > > Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma > > screen in the living room? Or one of the many > stereo-component-styled > > "media" PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows > > MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because > people want > > to hook their computers up to televisions? > > > > Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB > > from the PC in the other room? > > > > Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the > > back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) > > > Don't forget the laptop or thin desktop hooked up to the > 24-60 inch monitor in the bedroom/living room to watch > Netflix Watch It Now content (which there is no limit on how > much can be viewed by a customer). > > -brandon > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 14:44:38 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:44:38 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> References: from "michael.dillon@bt.com" at Apr 22, 2008 03:41:27 PM <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: > > You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? > > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large > quantities of television on? Especially now that it's pretty > common to have large, flat screen TV's, and watching TV even > on a 24" monitor feels like a throwback to the '80's? > > How about the one that's shaped like a TiVo and has a > built-in remote control, sane operating software, can be > readily purchased and set up by a non-techie, and is known to > work well? Maybe I have a warped sense of how normal people set up their home networks but I do notice all kinds of network storage for sale in local computer shops, and various multi-media player devices that connect to a TV screen, network, etc. I can understand why a TiVo collects content over the air, because it has TV receivers built into it. My PVR does much the same thing. But when it comes to collecting content from the Internet, it seems easier to just let the file server do that job. Or run the nice easy software on your home PC that allows you to search the web for torrents and just click on the ones you want to download. Let's face it, TiVo may have a lot of mindshare in that people constantly talk about the thing as if it was some kind of magic, but it hardly has the same kind of market share as the iPod. The functions of that the TiVo carries out are software and software is rather malleable. The functions of the various devices can be mixed and matched in various ways. We can't predict which combos will prevail, but we can make a pretty close guess as to the functionality of the whole system. > I remember all the fuss about how people would be making > phone calls using VoIP and their computers. Yet most of the > time, I see VoIP consumers transforming VoIP to legacy POTS, > or VoIP hardphones, or stuff like that. Cisco sells computers that look like a telephone set but have and Ethernet jack out the back. Whether you use the Gizmoproject software on a PC or one of these Cisco devices, you are still making VoIP calls on a computer. The appearance of a telephone is not terribly relevant. My mobile phone is a computer with Python installed on it to run a Russian-English dictionary application but it also includes a two-way radio transciever that is programmed to talk to a local cell transciever and behave like a telephone. But it is still a computer at heart. Anyone remember when a switch was a switch and a router was a router? Now both of them are backplanes with computers and port interfaces attached. > Wow. Okay. I'll just say, then, that such a position seems > a bit naive, and I suspect that broadband networks are going > to be crying about the sheer stresses on their networks, when > moderate numbers of people begin to upload videos into their > TiVo, which then share them with other TiVo's owned by their > friends around town, or across an ocean, while also > downloading a variety of shows from a dozen off-net sources, etc. Where have you been!? You have just described the P2P traffic that ISPs and other network operators have been complaining about since the dawn of this century. TiVo is just one of a thousand brand names for "home computer". > > Yes. The overall trend has been to increasingly split the > market into > > smaller slivers with additional choices being added and older ones > > still available. > > Yes, but that's still a broadcast model. We're talking about > an evolution (potentially _r_evolution) of technology where > the broadcast model itself is altered. I would say that splitting the market for content into many small slivers (a forest of shards) is pretty much a revolution. Whatever technology is used to deliver this forest of shards is irrelevant because the revolution is in the creation of this information superhighway with thousands of channels. And even though the concept predated the exponential growth of the Internet let's not forget that the web has been there and done that. > 2) Hard drives continue to grow, and the ability to store > more, combined > with higher bit rates (HD, less artifact, whatever) means that more > bits can be transferred to fill the same amount of time This is key. Any scenario that does not expect the end user to amass a huge library of content for later viewing, is missing an important component. And if that content library is encrypted or locked in some way so that it is married to one brand name device, or pay-per-view systems, then the majority of the market will pass it by. > > and a more-or-less > > fixed portion of people's disposable income. Based on this, I don't > > expect to see any really huge changes. > > That's fair enough. That's optimistic (from a network > operator's point of view.) I'm afraid that such changes will > happen, however. Bottom line is that our networks must be paid for. If consumers want to use more of our financial investment (capital and opex) then we will be forced to raise prices up to a level where it limits demand to what we can actually deliver. Most networks can live with a step up in consumption if it levels off because although they may lose money at first, if consumption dips and levels then they can make it back over time. If the content senders do not want this dipping and levelling off, then they will have to foot the bill for the network capacity. And if they want to recover that cost from the end users then they will also run into that limit in the amount of money people are able to spend on entertainment per month. Broadcast models were built based on a delivery system that scaled up as big as you want with only capex. But an IP network requires a lot of opex to maintain any level of capex investment. There ain't no free lunch. > The problem with that is that there's money to be had, and if > you let YouTube host your video, it's YouTube getting the > juicy ad money. The only difference from 1965 network TV is that in 1965, the networks had limited sources capable of producing content at a reasonable cost. But today, content production is cheap, and competition has driven the cost of content down to zero. Only the middleman selling ads has a business model any more. Network operators could fill that middleman role but most of them are still stuck in the telco/ISP mindset. > Well, that's the point I'm making. It isn't, and we're going > to see SOMEONE look at this wonderful Internet thingy and see > in it a way to "solve" this problem, which is going to turn > into an operational nightmare as traffic loads increase, and > a larger percentage of users start to either try to use the > bandwidth they're being "sold," or actually demand it. If this really happens, then some companies will fix their marketing and sales contracts, others will go into Chapter 11. But at the end of the day, as with the telecom collapse, the networks keep rolling on even if the management changes. > For example, consider the PTA meeting: I'm not sure if > YouTube is going to want to be dealing with maybe 10,000 > videos that are each an hour or two long which are watched by > maybe a handful of people, at however frequently your local > PTA meetings get held. Becuase there's a lot of PTA's. And > the meetings can be long. Further, it's a perfect situation > where you're likely to be able to keep a portion of the > traffic on-net through geolocality effects. You're right. People are already building YouTube clones or adding YouTube like video libraries to their websites. This software combined with lots of small distributed data centers like Amazon EC2, is likely where local content will go. Again one wonders why Google and Amazon and Yahoo are inventing this stuff rather than ISPs. Probably because after the wave of acquisition by telcos, they neglected the data center half of the ISP equation. In other words, there are historical reasons based on ignorance, but no fundamental barrier to large carriers offering something like Hadoop, EC2, AppEngine. > I would say that it is very much NOT the same experience as > programming a PVR. I watch exceedingly little video on the > computer, for example. I simply prefer the TV. Maybe PVR doesn't mean the same stateside as here in the UK. My PVR is a box with two digital TV receivers and 180 gig hard drive that connects to a TV screen. All interaction is through the remote and the TV. The difference between this and P2P video is only the software and the screen we watch it on. By the way, my 17-month old loves YouTube videos. There may be a generational thing coming down the road similar to the way young people have ditched email in favour of IM. > There are lots of things that multicast can be used for, and > there's no question that financial data could be useful that > way. However, what I'm saying is that this isn't > particularly relevant on the public Internet in a general > way. If it were not for these market data feeds, I doubt that IP multicast would be as widely supported by routers. > The real problem is that neither your financial transactions > nor any meaningful amount of video are able to transit > multicast across random parts of the public Internet, which > is a bit of a sticking point. Then there is P2MP (Point to Multi-Point) MPLS... --Michael Dillon From john-lists at vanoppen.com Tue Apr 22 14:43:54 2008 From: john-lists at vanoppen.com (John van Oppen (list account)) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:43:54 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets Message-ID: I know I have experienced the engineering department there as well, the best one was when they wanted paper documentation for every route I asked to have in our filters... (and they were incapable of using RADB). It was especially odd since we have > 80 of our own peers and three other transit providers to who we were announcing over 100 routes while they still wanted paper docs. But, filters seem to be an annoyance for most big providers... I have been trying to get level3 to fix our radb-based filtering for a while now (it just stopped pulling new updates for some reason). :) John -----Original Message----- From: manolo [mailto:mhernand1 at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:23 AM To: Joe Greco Cc: nanog at merit.edu Subject: Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets Well it also was the total arrogance on the part of Cogent engineering and management taking zero responsibility and pushing it back everytime valid issue or not. You had to be there. But everyone has a different opinion, my opinion is set regardless of what cogent tries to sell me now. Manolo Joe Greco wrote: >> Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth >> shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise >> our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables >> would drop as well. This happened for months on end. They tried blaming >> our 6500, our fiber provider, our IOS version, no conclusive findings >> where ever found that it was our problem. After some testing at the >> local Cogent office by both Cogent and myself, Cogent decided that they >> could "make a product" that would allow us too one have only one peer >> and two to connect directly to the GSR and not through a small catalyst. >> Low and behold things worked well for some time after that. >> >> This all happened while we had 3 other providers on the same router >> with no issues at all. We moved gbics, ports etc around to make sure it >> was not some odd ASIC or throughput issue with the 6500. >> > > Perhaps you haven't considered this, but did it ever occur to you that > Cogent probably had the same situation? They had a router with a bunch > of other customers on it, no reported problems, and you were the oddball > reporting significant issues? > > Quite frankly, your own description does not support this as being a > problem inherent to the peerA/peerB setup. > > You indicate that the peer advertising your routes would drop. The peer > with the full BGP tables would then drop as well. Well, quite frankly, > that makes complete sense. The peer advertising your routes also > advertises to you the route to get to the multihop peer, which you need > in order to be able to talk to that. Therefore, if the directly connected > BGP goes away for any reason, the multihop is likely to go away too. > > However, given the exact same hardware minus the multihop, your direct > BGP was still dropping. So had they been able to send you a full table > from the aggregation router, the same thing probably would have happened. > > This sounds more like flaky hardware, dirty optics, or a bad cable (or > several of the above). > > Given that, it actually seems quite reasonable to me to guess that it > could have been your 6500, your fiber provider, or your IOS version that > was introducing some problem. Anyone who has done any reasonable amount > of work in this business will have seen all three, and many of the people > here will say that the 6500 is a bit flaky and touchy when pushed into > service as a real router (while simultaneously using them in their > networks as such, heh, since nothing else really touches the price per > port), so Cogent's suggestion that it was a problem on your side may have > been based on bad experiences with other customer 6500's. > > However, it is also likely that it was some other mundane problem, or a > problem with the same items on Cogent's side. I would consider it a > shame that Cogent didn't work more closely with you to track down the > specific issue, because most of the time, these things can be isolated > and eliminated, rather than being potentially left around to mess up > someone in the future (think: bad port). > > ... JG > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From keith_mitchell at isc.org Tue Apr 22 14:52:40 2008 From: keith_mitchell at isc.org (Keith Mitchell) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:52:40 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] OARC DNS Operations Meeting, Brooklyn NY, 4/5th June Message-ID: <480E4208.9000202@isc.org> I'm pleased to announce the next OARC DNS Operations meeting will take place immediately after the NANOG43 meeting, in Brooklyn, NY, USA. The venue will be CUNY's Brooklyn College, about 5 miles from the NANOG Hotel. The open DNS Operations workshop will take place on the afternoon of Wed 4th June, and the morning of Thu 5th June. The OARC members-only meeting will take place on the afternoon of Thu 5th June. Further meeting information will be published as it becomes available at: http://public.oarci.net/dns-operations/workshop-2008/ We are grateful to OARC members for supporting this nonprofit meeting, allowing registration to be free for all participants. In order to help with meeting logistics, if you are planning to attend please register at https://oarc.isc.org/register.php as soon as possible. The strengths of OARC's meetings are very much due to the active participation of our members and the wider operators' community, and we are seeking presentations and suggestions for speakers on topics relevant to DNS Operations and Research. If you have either, please submit a short abstract to by the 31st May. Please contact me if you can assist with any of the above or need further information. Keith Mitchell OARC Programme Manager From petelists at templin.org Tue Apr 22 15:15:14 2008 From: petelists at templin.org (Pete Templin) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:15:14 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480E4752.1090703@templin.org> John van Oppen (list account) wrote: > I know I have experienced the engineering department there as well, the > best one was when they wanted paper documentation for every route I > asked to have in our filters... (and they were incapable of using > RADB). It was especially odd since we have > 80 of our own peers and > three other transit providers to who we were announcing over 100 routes > while they still wanted paper docs. I've fixed this by throwing their own policies back at them. Point out to them that the route is already appearing globally through your AS, and remind them that their policy, section 3b, already allows that. :) On the previous topic, I'd have to say that their two-peer system is perhaps one of the better, if not best, multihop implementations I've seen. Amongst other things, it tends to provide a rapid assessment of "life in the POP". I just wish they'd use their network status messages to reflect when they were having problems, instead of just problems that are too large for the call center to handle. :( pt From bzs at world.std.com Tue Apr 22 15:50:18 2008 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:50:18 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <171423de0804181315k743b84acrd05b8f93e7b68578@mail.gmail.com> <202705b0804191216m400731f8l19968bbbf167b31a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18446.20362.156211.44363@world.std.com> On April 21, 2008 at 09:44 drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote: > > I suspect this was referencing the difference between "public" as in > governmentally owned/operated (e.g., most of the highway system in the > US) vs. "private" that is non-governmentally owned/operated. The > Internet of today does indeed exist because of private efforts. But several of the major players in the net neutrality issue are beneficiaries of legal monopolies (e.g., just try to go into the landline voice business in Verizon's territory) and thus regulated for good reason. I think once a company accepts a legally enforced monopoly, sometimes with 100M or more customers, they're not really a private company. If they want the freedoms of a purely private company then they should renounce their monopolies. I wouldn't hold my breath. I realize others involved on the same side are not legal monopolies, though even cable TV companies have legally enforced monopolies or near monopolies on the catv wire plants in many of their customer regions. Remove the companies with the legal monopolies from the net neutrality issue (i.e., demand net neutrality only from the monopoly beneficiaries) and would this be much of an issue? Not really. That's because what you'd be left with is *competition*. But how can anyone seriously compete with companies who can cross-subsidize from legally enforced monopolies of 100M customers, including every single business in their region which is often delineated in chunks like "all of the northeastern united states" or thereabouts? Fair is fair: They shouldn't be able to have it both ways and be able to cry "legal monopoly!" when someone tries to compete with them and "private company!" when the monopoly grantors try to reasonably regulate that monopoly-derived power. It's an awesome market power they have been granted. We shouldn't let them use it to control other markets. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From jgreco at ns.sol.net Tue Apr 22 16:08:05 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:08:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: from "Joe Abley" at Apr 22, 2008 01:45:19 PM Message-ID: <200804222108.m3ML86w1048265@aurora.sol.net> > On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: > >> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing > >> clients? > > > > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of > > television on? > > Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma > screen in the living room? Or one of the many stereo-component-styled > "media" PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows > MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because people want > to hook their computers up to televisions? > > Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB > from the PC in the other room? > > Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the > back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) Pretty much. People have a fairly clear bias against watching anything on your conventional PC. This probably has something to do with the way the display ergonomics work; my best guess is that most people have their PC's set up in a corner with a chair and a screen suitable for work at a distance of a few feet. As a result, there's usually a clear delineation between devices that are used as general purpose computers, and devices that are used as specialized media display devices. The "Mac Mini" may be an example of a device that can be used either way, but do you know of many people that use it as a computer (and do all their normal computing tasks) while it's hooked up to a large TV? Even Apple acknowledged the legitimacy of this market by releasing AppleTV. People generally do not want to hook their _computer_ up to televisions, but rather they want to hook _a_ computer up to television so that they're able to do things with their TV that an off-the-shelf product won't do for them. That's an important distinction, and all of the examples you've provided seem to be examples of the latter, rather than the former, which is what I was talking about originally. If you want to discuss the latter, then we've got to include a large field of other devices, ironically including the TiVo, which are actually programmable computers that have been designed for specific media tasks, and are theoretically reprogrammable to support a wide variety of interesting possibilities, and there we have the entry into the avalanche of troubling operational issues that could result from someone releasing software that distributes large amounts of content over the Internet, and ... oh, my bad, that brings us back to what we were talking about. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From blackham at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 17:05:13 2008 From: blackham at gmail.com (Kevin Blackham) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:05:13 -0600 Subject: [Nanog] Crypto export restricted prefix list Message-ID: Is there a prefix list available listing the IP space of cryptographic export restricted countries? My google skills are failing me. I'm required to apply a ban on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. From jgreco at ns.sol.net Tue Apr 22 18:55:08 2008 From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:55:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: from "michael.dillon@bt.com" at Apr 22, 2008 08:44:38 PM Message-ID: <200804222355.m3MNt80m053403@aurora.sol.net> > > > You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? > > > > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large > > quantities of television on? Especially now that it's pretty > > common to have large, flat screen TV's, and watching TV even > > on a 24" monitor feels like a throwback to the '80's? > > > > How about the one that's shaped like a TiVo and has a > > built-in remote control, sane operating software, can be > > readily purchased and set up by a non-techie, and is known to > > work well? > > Maybe I have a warped sense of how normal people set up their > home networks but I do notice all kinds of network storage for > sale in local computer shops, and various multi-media player devices > that connect to a TV screen, network, etc. Yes, but there's no real standard. It's mostly hodgepodge based solutions that allow techie types to cobble together some random collection of hardware to resolve some particular subset of problems. What the public wants, though, is for someone to solve this problem and build it for them. As an example, consider that it's a lot more popular for home users to source their DVR from their cable company than it is for them to get a CableCARD receiver card for their PC and try to roll a MythTV box for themselves. > I can understand why > a TiVo collects content over the air, because it has TV receivers > built into it. My PVR does much the same thing. But when it comes > to collecting content from the Internet, it seems easier to just > let the file server do that job. Or run the nice easy software on > your home PC that allows you to search the web for torrents and > just click on the ones you want to download. > > Let's face it, TiVo may have a lot of mindshare in that people > constantly talk about the thing as if it was some kind of magic, > but it hardly has the same kind of market share as the iPod. > The functions of that the TiVo carries out are software and > software is rather malleable. The functions of the various devices > can be mixed and matched in various ways. We can't predict which > combos will prevail, but we can make a pretty close guess as to > the functionality of the whole system. The magic of TiVo isn't that it records video. The magic bit is more abstract, and it is that someone made a device that actually does what the average consumer _wants_, rather than simply acting as a generic DVR. You actually said it yourself above, "it just seems easier" - but then you got sidetracked by the loveliness of your PC. The magic of a TiVo- like device is that end users perceive it as easier. The solution that doesn't involve them learning what torrents are, or filesharing is, or having to figure out how to hook a computer up to a TV is, because some TiVo-like device took it and internalized all of that and SOLVED the problem, and solved it not only for them but a million other TV viewers at the same time, that's the solution that's going to be truly successful. Not your homegrown DVR. > > I remember all the fuss about how people would be making > > phone calls using VoIP and their computers. Yet most of the > > time, I see VoIP consumers transforming VoIP to legacy POTS, > > or VoIP hardphones, or stuff like that. > > Cisco sells computers that look like a telephone set but have > and Ethernet jack out the back. Whether you use the Gizmoproject > software on a PC or one of these Cisco devices, you are still > making VoIP calls on a computer. The appearance of a telephone > is not terribly relevant. My mobile phone is a computer with > Python installed on it to run a Russian-English dictionary application > but it also includes a two-way radio transciever that is programmed > to talk to a local cell transciever and behave like a telephone. > But it is still a computer at heart. The hell it is. It's still fundamentally a phone. That you can reprogram it to do other things is technologically interesting to a small number of geeks, but were you to ask the average person "what is this," they'd still see it as a phone, and see its primary job as making phone calls. Further, that does not even begin to argue against what I was saying, which is that most people are NOT making phone calls using VoIP from their computers. > Anyone remember when a switch was a switch and a router was a router? > Now both of them are backplanes with computers and port interfaces > attached. Yes. There's a certain amount of sense to that, at least once you needed to be able to process things at wirespeed. > > Wow. Okay. I'll just say, then, that such a position seems > > a bit naive, and I suspect that broadband networks are going > > to be crying about the sheer stresses on their networks, when > > moderate numbers of people begin to upload videos into their > > TiVo, which then share them with other TiVo's owned by their > > friends around town, or across an ocean, while also > > downloading a variety of shows from a dozen off-net sources, etc. > > Where have you been!? I've been right here, serving high bandwidth content for many years. > You have just described the P2P traffic that ISPs and other network > operators have been complaining about since the dawn of this century. No. I've just described something much worse, because there is the potential for so much more volume. TiVo implies that the device can do speculative fetch, not just the on-demand sort of things most current P2P networks do. > TiVo is just one of a thousand brand names for "home computer". If you want to define "home computer" that way. Personally, while my light switches contain microprocessors, and may be reprogrammable, that does not mean that I view them as computers. I don't think I can run X11 on my light switch (even though it's got several LED's). I don't think that it's a good idea to try to run FreeBSD on my security system. I don't think that I'll be able to run OpenOffice on my Cisco 7960G's. I'm pretty sure that my thermostat isn't good for running Mahjongg. And the TiVo probably isn't going to run Internet Explorer anytime soon. There are microprocessors all over the place. Possessing a microprocessor, and even being able to affect the programming that runs on a uP, doesn't make every such device a home computer. One of these days, we're going to wake up and discover that someone (and I guess it's got to be someone more persuasive than Apple with their AppleTV doodad) is going to create some device that is compelling to users. I do not care that it has a microprocessor inside, or even that it may be programmable. The thing is likely to be a variation on a set-top box, is likely to have TiVo-like capabilities, and I'm worried about what's going to happen to IP networks. > > > Yes. The overall trend has been to increasingly split the > > market into > > > smaller slivers with additional choices being added and older ones > > > still available. > > > > Yes, but that's still a broadcast model. We're talking about > > an evolution (potentially _r_evolution) of technology where > > the broadcast model itself is altered. > > I would say that splitting the market for content into many > small slivers (a forest of shards) is pretty much a revolution. Agreed :-) I'm not sure it'll happen all at once, though. > Whatever technology is used to deliver this forest of shards is > irrelevant because the revolution is in the creation of this > information superhighway with thousands of channels. And even > though the concept predated the exponential growth of the Internet > let's not forget that the web has been there and done that. Ok, I'll accept that. Except I'd like to note that the technology that I have seen that could enable this is probably the Internet; most other methods of transmission are substantially more restricted (i.e. it's pretty difficult for me to go and get a satellite uplink, but pretty much even the most lowly DSL customer probably has a 384k upstream). > > 2) Hard drives continue to grow, and the ability to store > > more, combined > > with higher bit rates (HD, less artifact, whatever) means that more > > bits can be transferred to fill the same amount of time > > This is key. Any scenario that does not expect the end user to amass a > huge library of content for later viewing, is missing an important > component. And if that content library is encrypted or locked in some > way so that it is married to one brand name device, or pay-per-view > systems, then the majority of the market will pass it by. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE... that I wish the world worked that way. ( :-) ) > > > and a more-or-less > > > fixed portion of people's disposable income. Based on this, I don't > > > expect to see any really huge changes. > > > > That's fair enough. That's optimistic (from a network > > operator's point of view.) I'm afraid that such changes will > > happen, however. > > Bottom line is that our networks must be paid for. If consumers want to > use more of our financial investment (capital and opex) then we will be > forced to raise prices up to a level where it limits demand to what we > can actually deliver. Most networks can live with a step up in > consumption > if it levels off because although they may lose money at first, if > consumption > dips and levels then they can make it back over time. If the content > senders > do not want this dipping and levelling off, then they will have to foot > the > bill for the network capacity. That's kind of the funniest thing I've seen today, it sounds so much like an Ed Whitacre. I've somewhat deliberately avoided the model of having some large-channel-like "content senders" enter this discussion, because I am guessing that there will be a large number of people who may simply use their existing - paid for - broadband connections. That's the PTA example and probably the "Star Trek: Hidden Frontier" example, and then for good measure, throw in everyone who will be self-publishing the content that (looking back on today) used to get served on YouTube. Then Ed learns that the people he'd like to charge for the privilege of using "his" pipes are already paying for pipes. > And if they want to recover that cost from the > end users then they will also run into that limit in the amount of money > people are able to spend on entertainment per month. > > Broadcast models were built based on a delivery system that scaled up as > big as you want with only capex. But an IP network requires a lot of > opex > to maintain any level of capex investment. There ain't no free lunch. I certainly agree, that's why this discussion is relevant. > > The problem with that is that there's money to be had, and if > > you let YouTube host your video, it's YouTube getting the > > juicy ad money. > > The only difference from 1965 network TV is that in 1965, the networks > had limited sources capable of producing content at a reasonable cost. > But today, content production is cheap, and competition has driven the > cost of content down to zero. Right, that's a "problem" I'm seeing too. > Only the middleman selling ads has a > business model any more. Network operators could fill that middleman > role but most of them are still stuck in the telco/ISP mindset. So, consider what would happen if that were to be something that you could self-manage, outsourcing the hard work to an advertising provider. Call it maybe Google AdVideos. :-) Host the video on your TiVo, or your PC, and take advantage of your existing bandwidth. (There are obvious non- self-hosted models already available, I'm not focusing on them, but they would work too) > > Well, that's the point I'm making. It isn't, and we're going > > to see SOMEONE look at this wonderful Internet thingy and see > > in it a way to "solve" this problem, which is going to turn > > into an operational nightmare as traffic loads increase, and > > a larger percentage of users start to either try to use the > > bandwidth they're being "sold," or actually demand it. > > If this really happens, then some companies will fix their marketing > and sales contracts, others will go into Chapter 11. But at the end > of the day, as with the telecom collapse, the networks keep rolling > on even if the management changes. I would think that has some operational aspects that are worth talking about. > > For example, consider the PTA meeting: I'm not sure if > > YouTube is going to want to be dealing with maybe 10,000 > > videos that are each an hour or two long which are watched by > > maybe a handful of people, at however frequently your local > > PTA meetings get held. Becuase there's a lot of PTA's. And > > the meetings can be long. Further, it's a perfect situation > > where you're likely to be able to keep a portion of the > > traffic on-net through geolocality effects. > > You're right. People are already building YouTube clones or > adding YouTube like video libraries to their websites. This > software combined with lots of small distributed data centers > like Amazon EC2, is likely where local content will go. Again > one wonders why Google and Amazon and Yahoo are inventing > this stuff rather than ISPs. Probably because after the wave > of acquisition by telcos, they neglected the data center half > of the ISP equation. In other words, there are historical > reasons based on ignorance, but no fundamental barrier to > large carriers offering something like Hadoop, EC2, AppEngine. That's true, but it's also quite possible that we'll see it decentralize further. Why should I pay someone to host content if I could just share it from my PC... I'm not saying that I _want_ Microsoft to wake up and realize that it has a path to strike at some portions of Google, et.al, by changing the very nature of Internet content distribution, but it's a significant possibility. That P2P networks work as well as they do says gobs about the potential. > > I would say that it is very much NOT the same experience as > > programming a PVR. I watch exceedingly little video on the > > computer, for example. I simply prefer the TV. > > Maybe PVR doesn't mean the same stateside as here in the UK. > My PVR is a box with two digital TV receivers and 180 gig > hard drive that connects to a TV screen. All interaction is > through the remote and the TV. Then it's part of your TV system, not really a personal computer. > The difference between this > and P2P video is only the software and the screen we watch it on. > By the way, my 17-month old loves YouTube videos. There may > be a generational thing coming down the road similar to the > way young people have ditched email in favour of IM. That's possible, but there are still some display ergonomics issues with watching things on a computer. AppleTV is perfectly capable of downloading YouTube and displaying it on a TV; this is not at issue. iPhones are _also_ capable of it, but that does not mean that you are going to want to watch hour-long TV shows on your iPhone with the rest of your family... that's where having a large TV set, surrounded by some furniture that people can relax on comes in. In any case, the point is still that I think there will be a serious problem if and when someone comes up with a TiVo-like device that implements what I like to refer to as InterneTiVo. That all the necessary technology to implement this is available TODAY is completely irrelevant; it is going to take someone taking all the technical bits, figuring out how to glue it all together in a usable way, package it up to hide the gory details, and then sell it as a set-top box for $cheap in the same way that TiVo did. When TiVo did that, not only did they make "DVR" a practical reality for the average consumer, but they also actually managed to succeed at a more abstract level - the device they designed wasn't just capable of recording Channel 22 from 8:00PM to 9:00PM every Wednesday night, but was actually capable of analyzing the broadcast schedule, picking up shows at whatever time they were available, rescheduling around conflicts, and even looking for things that were similar, that a user might like. A TiVo isn't a "DVR" (in the sense of the relatively poor capabilities of most of the devices that bear that tag) so much as it is a personal video assistant. So what I'm thinking of is a device that is doing the equivalent of being a "personal video assistant" on the Internet. And I believe it is coming. Something that's capable of searching out and speculatively downloading the things it thinks you might be interested in. Not some techie's cobbled together PC with BitTorrent and HDMI outputs. An actual set-top box that the average user can use. > > There are lots of things that multicast can be used for, and > > there's no question that financial data could be useful that > > way. However, what I'm saying is that this isn't > > particularly relevant on the public Internet in a general > > way. > > If it were not for these market data feeds, I doubt that > IP multicast would be as widely supported by routers. If it weren't for the internet, I doubt that IP would be as widely supported by routers. :-) Something always drives technology. The hardware specifics of this is getting a bit off-topic, at least for this list. Do we agree that there's a potential model in the future where video may be speculatively fetched off the Internet and then stored for possible viewing, and if so, can we refocus a bit on that? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. From blackham at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 19:04:05 2008 From: blackham at gmail.com (Kevin Blackham) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:04:05 -0600 Subject: [Nanog] Crypto export restricted prefix list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of the limitations of this approach. For the same reasons you stated (proxy etc), I don't expect this to be foolproof or accurate. I'm only intending to satisfy a demand to "do something". We already dictate export requirements in the EULA, but we need to also attempt to block the embargoed countries. On 4/22/08, Buhrmaster, Gary wrote: > > > Is there a prefix list available listing the IP space of cryptographic > > export restricted countries? My google skills are failing me. I'm > > required to apply a ban on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. > > I am pretty sure that while you can get a list of IP addresses > "currently" being used, you know (as well as I do) that those > can/will change, and NAT/Proxies make it nearly impossible > to really enforce this. So while it can be something to > do, it is not going to be complete. > > I am pretty sure you need something like a "click-through" > for people to say they agree they are not citizens of those > countries, and agree not to export to them (same as Cisco > and others do). > > In any case, check with your lawyers are to the actual > acceptable practices. They are the ones who will need > to defend your company if/when the software gets to > the "evil-doers" (and it will, if they want it, and > we all know it), and someone decides you should have > done more and decides to sue. > > (The ITAR (and equivalent) restriction laws are complex, > and you want to make sure you get it right, since you > do not want to be the "designated felon" as our lawyers > likes to call the guy who is responsible for compliance > and will be the one the feds go after if the software > or information gets to the "wrong" groups. So, make > sure someone else is the "designated felon".) > > Gary > From marc at let.de Tue Apr 22 20:06:35 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:06:35 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net> <366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3595F0F2-5DF4-4FAB-9255-E23CFAA9DB8C@let.de> > .......is the first H.264 encoder ...... designed by .... > specifically for ....... environments. It natively supports > the RTSP streaming media protocol. ........ can stream directly to > ..... hi marc so your " oskar" can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? cheers Marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :marc at kgraff.net blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org Klarmachen zum ?ndern! http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 23 04:39:33 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:39:33 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <200804222355.m3MNt80m053403@aurora.sol.net> References: from "michael.dillon@bt.com" at Apr 22, 2008 08:44:38 PM <200804222355.m3MNt80m053403@aurora.sol.net> Message-ID: > > If the content senders do not want this dipping and levelling > > off, then they will have to foot the bill for the network capacity. > > That's kind of the funniest thing I've seen today, it sounds > so much like an Ed Whitacre. > Then Ed learns that > the people he'd like to charge for the privilege of using > "his" pipes are already paying for pipes. If they really were paying for pipes, there would be no issue. The reason there is an issue is because network operators have been assuming that consumers, and content senders, would not use 100% of the access link capacity through the ISP's core network. When you assume any kind of overbooking then you are taking the risk that you have underpriced the service. The ideas people are talking about, relating to pumping lots of video to every end user, are fundamentally at odds with this overbooking model. The risk level has change from one in 10,000 to one in ten or one in five. > > But today, content production is cheap, and competition has > driven the > > cost of content down to zero. > > Right, that's a "problem" I'm seeing too. Unfortunately, the content owners still think that content is king and that they are sitting on a gold mine. They fail to see that they are only raking in revenues because they spend an awful lot of money on marketing their content. And the market is now so diverse (YouTube, indie bands, immigrant communities) that nobody can get anywhere close to 100% share. The long tail seems to be getting a bigger share of the overall market. > Host the video on your TiVo, or your PC, and take advantage > of your existing bandwidth. (There are obvious non- > self-hosted models already available, I'm not focusing on > them, but they would work too) Not a bad idea if the asymmetry in ADSL is not too small. But this all goes away if we really do get the kind of distributed data centers that I envision, where most business premises convert their machine rooms into generic compute/storage arrays. I should point out that the enterprise world is moving this way, not just Google/Amazon/Yahoo. For instance, many companies are moving applications onto virtual machines that are hosted on relatively generic compute arrays, with storage all in SANs. VMWare has a big chunk of this market but XEN based solutions with their ability to migrate running virtual machines, are also in use. And since a lot of enterprise software is built with Java, clustering software like Terracotta makes it possible to build a compute array with several JVM's per core and scale applications with a lot less fuss than traditional cluster operating systems. Since most ISPs are now owned by telcos and since most telcos have lots of strategically located buildings with empty space caused by physical shrinkage of switching equipment, you would think that everybody on this list would be thinking about how to integrate all these data center pods into their networks. > So what I'm thinking of is a device that is doing the > equivalent of being a "personal video assistant" on the > Internet. And I believe it is coming. Something that's > capable of searching out and speculatively downloading the > things it thinks you might be interested in. Not some > techie's cobbled together PC with BitTorrent and HDMI > outputs. Speculative downloading is the key here, and I believe that cobbled together boxes will end up doing the same thing. However, this means that any given content file will be going to a much larger number of endpoints, which is something that P2P handles quite well. P2P software is a form of multicast as is a CDN (Content Delivery Network) like Akamai. Just because IP Multicast is built into the routers, does not make it the best way to multicast content. Given that widespread IP multicast will *NOT* happen without ISP investment and that it potentially impacts every router in the network, I think it has a disadvantage compared with P2P or systems which rely on a few middleboxes strategically places, such as caching proxies. > The hardware specifics of this is getting a bit off-topic, at > least for this list. Do we agree that there's a potential > model in the future where video may be speculatively fetched > off the Internet and then stored for possible viewing, and if > so, can we refocus a bit on that? I can only see this speculative fetching if it is properly implemented to minimize its impact on the network. The idea of millions of unicast streams or FTP downloads in one big exaflood, will kill speculative fetching. If the content senders create an exaflood, then the audience will not get the kind of experience that they expect, and will go elsewhere. We had this experience recently in the UK when they opened a new terminal at Heathrow airport and British-Airways moved operations to T5 overnight. The exaflood of luggage was too much for the system, and it has taken weeks to get to a level of service that people still consider "bad service" but bearable. They had so much misplaced luggage that they sent many truckloads of it to Italy to be sorted and returned to the owners. One of my colleagues claims that the only reason the terminal is now half-way functional is that many travellers are afraid to take any luggage at all except for carry-on. So far two executives of the airline have been sacked and the government is being lobbied to break the airport operator monopoly so that at least one of London's two major airports is run by a different company. The point is that only the most stupid braindead content provider executive would unleash something like that upon their company by creating an exaflood. Personally I think the optimal solution is for a form of P2P that is based on published standards, with open source implementations, and relies on a topology guru inside each ISP's network to inject traffic policy information into the system. --Michael Dillon From Marc.Williams at neustar.biz Wed Apr 23 09:08:36 2008 From: Marc.Williams at neustar.biz (Williams, Marc) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: <3595F0F2-5DF4-4FAB-9255-E23CFAA9DB8C@let.de> References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net><366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> <3595F0F2-5DF4-4FAB-9255-E23CFAA9DB8C@let.de> Message-ID: Just an ad used to illustrate the low cost and ease of use. The fact that it's quicktime also made me realize it's also ipods, iphones/wifi, and that Apple has web libraries ready for web site development on their darwin boxes. Also, I would imagine this device could easily be cross connected and multicasted into each access router so that the only bandwidth used is that bandwidth being paid for by customer or QoS unicast streams feeding an MCU. Rambling now, but happy to answer your question. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Manthey [mailto:marc at let.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > > .......is the first H.264 encoder ...... designed by .... > > specifically for ....... environments. It natively supports > the RTSP > > streaming media protocol. ........ can stream directly to ..... > > hi marc > so your " oskar" can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and > quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? > > cheers > > Marc > > > -- > Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey > - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany > Tel.:0049-221-3558032 > Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 > jabber :marc at kgraff.net > blog : http://www.let.de > ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org > > Klarmachen zum ?ndern! > http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From tme at multicasttech.com Wed Apr 23 09:15:41 2008 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:15:41 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net><366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> <3595F0F2-5DF4-4FAB-9255-E23CFAA9DB8C@let.de> Message-ID: <1AF3839D-415F-4500-B626-ADF04D69FEB9@multicasttech.com> Here is a spec sheet : Regards Marshall On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Williams, Marc wrote: > Just an ad used to illustrate the low cost and ease of use. The > fact that it's quicktime also made me realize it's also ipods, > iphones/wifi, and that Apple has web libraries ready for web site > development on their darwin boxes. Also, I would imagine this > device could easily be cross connected and multicasted into each > access router so that the only bandwidth used is that bandwidth > being paid for by customer or QoS unicast streams feeding an MCU. > Rambling now, but happy to answer your question. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc Manthey [mailto:marc at let.de] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM >> To: nanog at nanog.org >> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 >> >>> .......is the first H.264 encoder ...... designed by .... >>> specifically for ....... environments. It natively supports >> the RTSP >>> streaming media protocol. ........ can stream directly to ..... >> >> hi marc >> so your " oskar" can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and >> quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? >> >> cheers >> >> Marc >> >> >> -- >> Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey >> - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany >> Tel.:0049-221-3558032 >> Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 >> jabber :marc at kgraff.net >> blog : http://www.let.de >> ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org >> >> Klarmachen zum ?ndern! >> http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From marc at let.de Wed Apr 23 09:35:21 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:35:21 +0200 Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <200804221647.m3MGl20g036124@aurora.sol.net><366100670804221051o6459a482h809652b05cc1df92@mail.gmail.com> <3595F0F2-5DF4-4FAB-9255-E23CFAA9DB8C@let.de> Message-ID: Am 23.04.2008 um 16:08 schrieb Williams, Marc: > Just an ad hi marc.... cool . so i have 3 computers that does not do the job and i have not much money can you send me one of those;) ? Or cheapest_beta_tester_non_commercial_offer you can make . ? I accept offlist conversation. thanks and sorry for my ramblings greetings from germany Marc >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc Manthey [mailto:marc at let.de] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM >> To: nanog at nanog.org >> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 >> >>> .......is the first H.264 encoder ...... designed by .... >>> specifically for ....... environments. It natively supports >> the RTSP >>> streaming media protocol. ........ can stream directly to ..... >> >> hi marc >> so your " oskar" can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and >> quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? >> >> cheers >> >> Marc >> >> >> -- >> Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey >> - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany >> Tel.:0049-221-3558032 >> Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 >> jabber :marc at kgraff.net >> blog : http://www.let.de >> ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org >> >> Klarmachen zum ?ndern! >> http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> From christopher.morrow at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 09:47:18 2008 From: christopher.morrow at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Message-ID: <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Laird Popkin wrote: > This raises an interesting issue - should optimization of p2p traffic (P4P) be based on "static" network information, or "dynamic" network information. It's certainly easier for ISP's to provide a simple network map that real-time network condition data, but the real-time data might be much more effective. Or even if it's not real-time, perhaps there could be "static" network maps reflecting conditions at different times of day? > 100% solution + 100% more complexity vs 80% solution ? It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a network sense. Something like: 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... P4P is an interesting move by Verizon, tin-hat-ness makes me think it's a method to raise costs on the direct competitors to VZ (increase usage on access-links where competitors mostly have shared access-links) but I agree with Harrowell that it's sure nice to see VZ participating in Internet things in a good way for the community. (though see tin-hat perhaps it's short-term good and long-term bad.../me puts away hat now) -Chris From a.harrowell at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 10:39:56 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:39:56 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow < christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote: > > It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer > address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a > network sense. Something like: > > 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a > public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) > 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? > > This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my > transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful > expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP addressing structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This is why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. Alex From n at ml.org Wed Apr 23 12:45:11 2008 From: n at ml.org (Daniel Reed) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:45:11 -0700 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> Message-ID: <9c58d6270804231045m6ce3bce9m2ae0b12e6107c3e6@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Petri Helenius wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > But there is another way. That is for software developers to build a > > modified client that depends on a topology guru for information on the > > network topology. This topology guru would be some software that is run > number of total participants) I fail to figure out the necessary > mathematics where topology information would bring superior results > compared to the usual greedy algorithms where data is requested from the > peers where it seems to be flowing at the best rates. If local peers > with sufficient upstream bandwidth exist, majority of the data blocks > are already retrieved from them. You can think of the scheduling process as two independent problems: 1. Given a list of all the chunks that all the peers you're connected to have, select the chunks you think will help you complete the fastest. 2. Given a list of all peers in a cloud, select the peers you think will help you complete the fastest. Traditionally, peer scheduling (#2) has been to just connect to everyone you see and let network bottlenecks drive you toward efficiency, as you pointed out. However, as your chunk scheduling becomes more effective, it usually becomes more expensive. At some point, its increasing complexity will reverse the trend and start slowing down copies, as real-world clients begin to block making chunk requests waiting for CPU to make scheduling decisions. A more selective peer scheduler would allow you to reduce the inputs into the chunk scheduler (allowing it to do more complex things with the same cost). The idea is, doing more math on the best data will yield better overall results than doing less math on the best + the worse data, with the assumption that a good peer scheduler will help you find the best data. As seems to be a trend, Michael appears to be fixated on a specific implementation, and may end up driving many observers into thinking this idea is annoying :) However, there is a mathematical basis for including topology (and other nontraditional) information in scheduling decisions. From christopher.morrow at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 13:17:25 2008 From: christopher.morrow at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:25 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75cb24520804231117m7b6ab9afhc34c901dcca0d0ea@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > > > It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer > > address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a > > network sense. Something like: > > > > 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a > > public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) > > 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? > > > > This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my > > transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful > > expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... > > Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP addressing > structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This is > why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. > sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s). perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more realtime info about locality. From laird at pando.com Wed Apr 23 14:20:57 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:20:57 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <9c58d6270804231045m6ce3bce9m2ae0b12e6107c3e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> <9c58d6270804231045m6ce3bce9m2ae0b12e6107c3e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Daniel Reed wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Petri Helenius > wrote: >> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >>> But there is another way. That is for software developers to build a >>> modified client that depends on a topology guru for information on >>> the >>> network topology. This topology guru would be some software that >>> is run >> number of total participants) I fail to figure out the necessary >> mathematics where topology information would bring superior results >> compared to the usual greedy algorithms where data is requested >> from the >> peers where it seems to be flowing at the best rates. If local peers >> with sufficient upstream bandwidth exist, majority of the data blocks >> are already retrieved from them. It's true that in the long run p2p transfers can optimize data sources by measuring actual throughput, but at any given moment this approach can only optimize within the set of known peers. The problem is that for large swarms, any given peer only knows about a very small subset of available peers, so it may take a long time to discover the best peers. This means (IMO) that starting with good peers instead of random peers can make a big difference in p2p performance, as well as reducing data delivery costs to the ISP. For example, let's consider a downloader in a swarm of 100,000 peers, using a BitTorrent announce once a minute that returns 40 peers. Of course, this is a simple case, but it should be sufficient to make the general point that the selection of which peers you connect to matters. Let's look at the odds that you'll find out about the closest peer (in network terms) over time. With random peer assignment, the odds of any random peer being the closest peer is 40/100,000, and if you do the math, the odds of finding the closest peer on the first announce is 1.58%. Multiplying that out, it means that you'll have a 38.1% chance of finding the closest peer in the first half hour, and a 61.7% chance in the first hour, and 85.3% chance in the first two hours, and so on out as a geometric curve. In the real world there are factors that complicate the analysis (e.g. most Trackers announce much less often than 1/minute, but some peers have other discovery mechanisms such as Peer Exchange). But as far as I can tell, the basic issue (that it takes a long time to find out about and test data exchanges with all of the peers in a large swarm) still holds. With P4P, you find out about the closest peers on the first announce. There's a second issue that I think is relevant, which is that measured network throughput may not reflect ISP costs and business policies. For example, a downloader might get data from a fast peer through a trans-atlantic pipe, but the ISP would really rather have that user get data from a fast peer on their local loop instead. This won't happen unless the p2p network knows about (and makes decisions based on) network topology. What we found in our first field test was that random peer assignment moved 98% of data between ISP's and only 2% within ISP's (and for smaller ISP's, more like 0.1%), and that even simple network awareness resulted in an average of 34% same-ISP data transfers (i.e. a drop of 32% in external transit). With ISP involvement, the numbers are even better. >> > > You can think of the scheduling process as two independent problems: > 1. Given a list of all the chunks that all the peers you're connected > to have, select the chunks you think will help you complete the > fastest. 2. Given a list of all peers in a cloud, select the peers you > think will help you complete the fastest. > > Traditionally, peer scheduling (#2) has been to just connect to > everyone you see and let network bottlenecks drive you toward > efficiency, as you pointed out. > > However, as your chunk scheduling becomes more effective, it usually > becomes more expensive. At some point, its increasing complexity will > reverse the trend and start slowing down copies, as real-world clients > begin to block making chunk requests waiting for CPU to make > scheduling decisions. > > A more selective peer scheduler would allow you to reduce the inputs > into the chunk scheduler (allowing it to do more complex things with > the same cost). The idea is, doing more math on the best data will > yield better overall results than doing less math on the best + the > worse data, with the assumption that a good peer scheduler will help > you find the best data. Interesting approach. IMO, given modern computers, CPU is highlu underutilized (PC's are 80% idle, and rarely CPU-bound when in use), while bandwidth is relatively scarce, so using more CPU to optimize bandwidth usage seems like a great tradeoff! > As seems to be a trend, Michael appears to be fixated on a specific > implementation, and may end up driving many observers into thinking > this idea is annoying :) However, there is a mathematical basis for > including topology (and other nontraditional) information in > scheduling decisions. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog Laird Popkin CTO, Pando Networks 520 Broadway, 10th floor New York, NY 10012 laird at pando.com c) 646/465-0570 From laird at pando.com Wed Apr 23 14:50:25 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:50:25 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <75cb24520804231117m7b6ab9afhc34c901dcca0d0ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> <75cb24520804231117m7b6ab9afhc34c901dcca0d0ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow >> wrote: >>> >>> It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer >>> address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a >>> network sense. Something like: >>> >>> 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a >>> public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) >>> 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? >>> >>> This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my >>> transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful >>> expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... >> >> Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP >> addressing >> structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. >> This is >> why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. >> > > sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s). > perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more > realtime info about locality. For the applications, it's a lot less work to use a clean network map from ISP's than it is to in effect derive one from lookups to ASN, / 24, /16, pings, traceroutes, etc. The main reason to spend the effort to implement those tactics is that it's better than not doing anything. :-) Laird Popkin CTO, Pando Networks 520 Broadway, 10th floor New York, NY 10012 laird at pando.com c) 646/465-0570 From blackham at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 14:53:02 2008 From: blackham at gmail.com (Kevin Blackham) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:53:02 -0600 Subject: [Nanog] Crypto export restricted prefix list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For the archives, my google skills returned and I found this: http://www.countryipblocks.net/ On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Kevin Blackham wrote: > Is there a prefix list available listing the IP space of cryptographic > export restricted countries? My google skills are failing me. I'm > required to apply a ban on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. > From todd-nanog at renesys.com Wed Apr 23 15:00:55 2008 From: todd-nanog at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:00:55 +0000 Subject: [Nanog] [NANOG-announce] Program Committee vacancy: call for volunteers Message-ID: <20080423200055.GL6212@renesys.com> Ted Seely has decided to step down from the NANOG Program Committee. On behalf of the Program Committee, and the NANOG community as a whole, I'd like to thank Ted for his many years of service to NANOG, not just in his capacity as a member of the Program Committee, but as a presenter and active participant. The Steering Committee has directed me to solicit candidates to fill the remainder of his term, which ends with the fall 2008 meeting. As some of you know, the Program Committee is responsible for the content of the NANOG conference. It is important work and we really need a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives to make the conference relevant for conference attendees. If you ever thought that the content of a conference wasn't as good as it should be, this is your chance to step up and work to make it better. ** Procedure ** To nominate yourself or someone else, please send mail to nominate at nanogpc.org with the following, no later than Monday, May 5, 2008 - Your name - Nominee's name (if not you) - Nominee's email address - Nominee's phone number - Reasons why you believe the nominee is qualified to serve on the Program Committee. A committee member will contact each of the nominees to verify interest and possibly request additional information. The Steering Committee, with input from the current Program Committee, will then select the person to fill the position. ** Eligibility ** The charter states: "To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Program Committee, an individual must have attended one NANOG meeting within the prior calendar year (12 months). " ** Duties ** Again quoting the charter: "The Program Committee is responsible for motivating/soliciting people to submit interesting talks, selecting the submissions which seem most appropriate (with some attention to presentation skills), and following up with speakers after acceptances to ensure that presentations are completed in time, with ample warning of potential problems with the presentation." "Each member of the Program Committee must review all presentations submitted for each meeting. The Chair may excuse a member from one meeting's review cycle due to extenuating circumstances, but if a member misses two meetings in a row, he or she may be removed from the committee." ** Length of term ** This position is for the remainder of a two year term, which began after the Fall 2006 meeting, and ends with the Fall 2008 meeting. So, yes, this term is only for a single NANOG meeting. But this will not impact the successful candidate's ability to serve two full terms. If you have any further questions, please post to the nanog-futures list, or contact the Steering Committee at steering at nanog.org. Todd Underwood, Chair Program Committee [1] The full charter is available at http://www.nanog.org/charter.html -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 15:23:40 2008 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Fwd: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d106eb50804231323k401f58a9u5c35b4cddab3b1bd@mail.gmail.com> Knowing that some here use this data for ops purposes.....FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michelle Cotton Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:49:44 -0700 Subject: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML To: "ietf at ietf.org" IETF Community: IANA is currently engaged in a project to convert the IETF related registries to XML to provide the community with multiple ways of viewing registry information. When conversion to XML is done, XML will become the source format for the registries and the current formats of html and plain text will be generated from the XML source. Stylesheets and schemas will also be made available together with XML. Users will be able to access the registries in new and useful ways, while still having the ability to see the registries in the original style. Part of the conversion requires IANA to "clean-up" the registries in order to fit with the XML schemas. IANA is not changing the data in the registries. IANA is cleaning up the formatting including regularizing spacing and providing consistent display of titles, references and registration procedures. For those registries that need extensive format changes, IANA will be working with the appropriate working groups and area directors to make sure that the format changes do not affect the content of the registry. Those registries that are required to be in specific formats, for example the MIBs and language subtags registries, will still be produced in the existing formats. IANA has consulted with the IETF XML directorate to make sure that the XML schemas are properly formulated. Certain decisions on schemas reflect the needs of IANA in maintaining the registries moving forward. In the coming months, cleaned-up versions of the registries will begin appearing on the IANA website. If you notice any content issues with the updated versions, or if they are not accessible, please notify IANA staff immediately and we will work with the appropriate parties to correct any inconsistencies. We look forward to providing the XML versions of the registries to better serve the community's needs. IANA will announce in advance when the registry conversion will be completed. After the conversion is complete, we intend to introduce new services such as the ability to subscribe to be notified when specific registries are updated Thank you, Michelle Cotton IANA IETF Liaison Email: michelle.cotton at icann.org From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 16:14:12 2008 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> <75cb24520804231117m7b6ab9afhc34c901dcca0d0ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75cb24520804231414k443885fy5c3884dec0809a46@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Laird Popkin wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer > > > > address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a > > > > network sense. Something like: > > > > > > > > 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a > > > > public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) > > > > 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? > > > > > > > > This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my > > > > transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful > > > > expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... > > > > > > > > > > Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP > addressing > > > structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This > is > > > why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. > > > > > > > > > > sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s). > > perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more > > realtime info about locality. > > > > For the applications, it's a lot less work to use a clean network map from > ISP's than it is to in effect derive one from lookups to ASN, /24, /16, > pings, traceroutes, etc. The main reason to spend the effort to implement > those tactics is that it's better than not doing anything. :-) > so.. 'not doing anything' may or may not be a good plan.. bittorrent works fine today(tm). On the other hand, asking network folks to turn over 'state secrets' (yes some folks, including doug's company) believe that their network diagrams/designs/paths are in some way 'secret' or a 'competitive advantage', so that will be a blocking factor. While, doing simple/easy things initially (most bittorrent things I've seen have <50 peers certainly there are more in some cases, but average? > or < than 100? so dns lookups or bit-wise comparisons seem cheap and easy) that get the progress going seems like a grand plan. Being blocked for the 100% solution and not making progress/showing-benefit seems bad :( -Chris From Stefan.Fouant at neustar.biz Wed Apr 23 16:23:02 2008 From: Stefan.Fouant at neustar.biz (Fouant, Stefan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information Message-ID: Hi folks, Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere which outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED, allowed prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each ISP one was a customer of to ascertain this information. Thanks in advance. Stefan Fouant Principal Network Engineer NeuStar From mevans at alphatheory.com Wed Apr 23 16:52:07 2008 From: mevans at alphatheory.com (Matthew Evans) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:52:07 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration? Message-ID: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABBE@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Hello all, Is anyone else have a problem with the NANOG messages ending up in their Outlook Junk Email folder since the migration to nanog.org? It only seems to happen when someone replies to another post and CC's nanog at nanog.org rather than replying to nanog at nanog.org directly. If anyone else has run into this, what have you done to resolve it? Matthew Evans, MCSA Alpha Theory | "the right decision, every time." 2201 Coronation Blvd., Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28227 www.alphatheory.com From eric at atlantech.net Wed Apr 23 16:55:33 2008 From: eric at atlantech.net (Eric Van Tol) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:55:33 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C05E949E19A9146AF7BDF9D44085B863500B0E574@exchange.aoihq.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouant, Stefan [mailto:Stefan.Fouant at neustar.biz] > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:23 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere > which > outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default > local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED, > allowed > prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each > ISP one was a customer of to ascertain this information. > > Thanks in advance. > Stefan Fouant Try this: http://www.onesc.net/communities/ -evt From rcorbin at hostmysite.com Wed Apr 23 17:02:47 2008 From: rcorbin at hostmysite.com (Raymond L. Corbin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration? In-Reply-To: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABBE@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> References: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABBE@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Message-ID: <609B96CBFE9ED64A9346C05705CA495203A0424A3B@MBX02.corp.safesecureweb.com> I have outlook spam filtering turned off so I haven't seen a problem. You can always create a rule saying if "nanog.org" is in the header and 'my name is not in the TO box' to move to the 'nanog' folder...or something similar... -Ray -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Evans [mailto:mevans at alphatheory.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:52 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration? Hello all, Is anyone else have a problem with the NANOG messages ending up in their Outlook Junk Email folder since the migration to nanog.org? It only seems to happen when someone replies to another post and CC's nanog at nanog.org rather than replying to nanog at nanog.org directly. If anyone else has run into this, what have you done to resolve it? Matthew Evans, MCSA Alpha Theory | "the right decision, every time." 2201 Coronation Blvd., Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28227 www.alphatheory.com _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From Stefan.Fouant at neustar.biz Wed Apr 23 17:04:45 2008 From: Stefan.Fouant at neustar.biz (Fouant, Stefan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:04:45 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information In-Reply-To: <2C05E949E19A9146AF7BDF9D44085B863500B0E574@exchange.aoihq.local> References: <2C05E949E19A9146AF7BDF9D44085B863500B0E574@exchange.aoihq.local> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:eric at atlantech.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:56 PM > To: Fouant, Stefan; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: Routing Policy Information > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouant, Stefan [mailto:Stefan.Fouant at neustar.biz] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:23 PM > > To: nanog at nanog.org > > Subject: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere > > which > > outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default > > local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED, > > allowed > > prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each > > ISP one was a customer of to ascertain this information. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > Stefan Fouant > > Try this: > > http://www.onesc.net/communities/ > > -evt Perfect... This rocks! Thanks, Stefan Fouant Principal Network Engineer NeuStar From darcy at druid.net Wed Apr 23 17:16:27 2008 From: darcy at druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration? In-Reply-To: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABBE@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> References: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABBE@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Message-ID: <20080423181627.6eee0dee.darcy@druid.net> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:52:07 -0400 Matthew Evans wrote: > Is anyone else have a problem with the NANOG messages ending up in their Outlook Junk Email folder since the migration to nanog.org? It only seems to happen when someone replies to another post and CC's nanog at nanog.org rather than replying to nanog at nanog.org directly. > > If anyone else has run into this, what have you done to resolve it? Just have your local Microsoft expert redo your filter. > Matthew Evans, MCSA Oh, never mind. Seriously, just fix your filters to recognize the following header: List-Id: North American Network Operators Group -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. From mevans at alphatheory.com Wed Apr 23 17:23:43 2008 From: mevans at alphatheory.com (Matthew Evans) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration? In-Reply-To: <20080423181627.6eee0dee.darcy@druid.net> References: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABBE@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> <20080423181627.6eee0dee.darcy@druid.net> Message-ID: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ABC6@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Thanks, didn't realize Outlook filters would look into headers. So far that seems to be working. Matthew Evans, MCSA Alpha Theory | "the right decision, every time." 2201 Coronation Blvd., Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28227 www.alphatheory.com ALPHA THEORY QUICK DEMO (click here) -----Original Message----- From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain [mailto:darcy at druid.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 6:16 PM To: Matthew Evans Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration? On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:52:07 -0400 Matthew Evans wrote: > Is anyone else have a problem with the NANOG messages ending up in their Outlook Junk Email folder since the migration to nanog.org? It only seems to happen when someone replies to another post and CC's nanog at nanog.org rather than replying to nanog at nanog.org directly. > > If anyone else has run into this, what have you done to resolve it? Just have your local Microsoft expert redo your filter. > Matthew Evans, MCSA Oh, never mind. Seriously, just fix your filters to recognize the following header: List-Id: North American Network Operators Group -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 23 17:26:16 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:26:16 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com><2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com><75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the > IP addressing structure doesn't necessarily map to the > network's cost structure. This is why I prefer the > P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. What's with these cute cryptic and ultimately meaningless names? I used the term "topology guru" because I wanted something that halfway describes what is going on. Coining a word with "torrent" in it is wrong because this kind of topology guru can be used with any P2P protocol. And P4P seems more like a brand name that tries to leverage off the term P2P. --Michael Dillon From laird at pando.com Wed Apr 23 17:30:46 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <1003284887.79861208989579680.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Message-ID: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network information and getting ISP-provided network information) as being complimentary. As you point out, for any ISP that doesn't provide network data, we're better off figuring out what we can to be smarter than 'random'. So while I prefer getting better data from ISP's, that's not holding us back from doing what we can without that data. ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" To: "Laird Popkin" Cc: "Alexander Harrowell" , "Doug Pasko" , nanog at nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:14:12 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: P2P traffic optimization Was: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Laird Popkin wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer > > > > address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a > > > > network sense. Something like: > > > > > > > > 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a > > > > public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) > > > > 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? > > > > > > > > This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my > > > > transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful > > > > expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... > > > > > > > > > > Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP > addressing > > > structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This > is > > > why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. > > > > > > > > > > sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s). > > perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more > > realtime info about locality. > > > > For the applications, it's a lot less work to use a clean network map from > ISP's than it is to in effect derive one from lookups to ASN, /24, /16, > pings, traceroutes, etc. The main reason to spend the effort to implement > those tactics is that it's better than not doing anything. :-) > so.. 'not doing anything' may or may not be a good plan.. bittorrent works fine today(tm). On the other hand, asking network folks to turn over 'state secrets' (yes some folks, including doug's company) believe that their network diagrams/designs/paths are in some way 'secret' or a 'competitive advantage', so that will be a blocking factor. While, doing simple/easy things initially (most bittorrent things I've seen have <50 peers certainly there are more in some cases, but average? > or < than 100? so dns lookups or bit-wise comparisons seem cheap and easy) that get the progress going seems like a grand plan. Being blocked for the 100% solution and not making progress/showing-benefit seems bad :( -Chris From brandon.galbraith at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 17:36:12 2008 From: brandon.galbraith at gmail.com (Brandon Galbraith) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:36:12 -0500 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <1298165839.67011208875227509.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <2109224401.67161208875739808.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <75cb24520804230747p51a9e089sb6796b964de9ecbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <366100670804231536q29f7c82bt544591e35fb27e5@mail.gmail.com> On 4/23/08, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the > > IP addressing structure doesn't necessarily map to the > > network's cost structure. This is why I prefer the > > P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. > > > What's with these cute cryptic and ultimately meaningless names? > > I used the term "topology guru" because I wanted something that > halfway describes what is going on. Coining a word with "torrent" > in it is wrong because this kind of topology guru can be used with > any P2P protocol. And P4P seems more like a brand name that tries > to leverage off the term P2P. > > --Michael Dillon > > Perhaps call it TopoMaster, and make it an open protocol that any app that needs to move lots o' bits around can use. -brandon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 23 17:40:11 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:40:11 +0100 Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <9c58d6270804231045m6ce3bce9m2ae0b12e6107c3e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080421.225744.21861.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> <480D9F17.10707@helenius.fi> <480DD62E.8040608@helenius.fi> <9c58d6270804231045m6ce3bce9m2ae0b12e6107c3e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > However, as your chunk scheduling becomes more effective, it > usually becomes more expensive. At some point, its increasing > complexity will reverse the trend and start slowing down > copies, as real-world clients begin to block making chunk > requests waiting for CPU to make scheduling decisions. This is not a bad thing. The intent is to optimize the whole system, not provide the fastest copies. Those who promote QoS often talk of some kind of scavenger level of service that sweeps up any available bandwidth after all the important users have gotten their fill. I see this type of P2P system in a similar light, i.e. it allows the ISP to allow as much bandwidth use as is economically feasible and block the rest. Since the end user ultimately relies on an ISP having a stable network that functions in the long term (not drives the ISP to bankruptcy) this seems to be a reasonable tradeoff. > As seems to be a trend, Michael appears to be fixated on a > specific implementation, and may end up driving many > observers into thinking this idea is annoying :) However, > there is a mathematical basis for including topology (and > other nontraditional) information in scheduling decisions. There is also precedent for this in manufacturing scheduling where you optimize your total systems by identifying the prime bottleneck and carefully managing that single point in the chain of operations. I'm not hung up on a specific implementation, just trying to present a concrete example that could be a starting point. And until today, I knew nothing about the P4P effort which seems to be working in the same direction. --Michael Dillon From laird at pando.com Wed Apr 23 18:30:43 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <794053689.80181208993443349.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> In case anyone's curious, there's more info on P4P at http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/yong/p4p/index.html. - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael dillon" To: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 6:40:11 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] > However, as your chunk scheduling becomes more effective, it > usually becomes more expensive. At some point, its increasing > complexity will reverse the trend and start slowing down > copies, as real-world clients begin to block making chunk > requests waiting for CPU to make scheduling decisions. This is not a bad thing. The intent is to optimize the whole system, not provide the fastest copies. Those who promote QoS often talk of some kind of scavenger level of service that sweeps up any available bandwidth after all the important users have gotten their fill. I see this type of P2P system in a similar light, i.e. it allows the ISP to allow as much bandwidth use as is economically feasible and block the rest. Since the end user ultimately relies on an ISP having a stable network that functions in the long term (not drives the ISP to bankruptcy) this seems to be a reasonable tradeoff. > As seems to be a trend, Michael appears to be fixated on a > specific implementation, and may end up driving many > observers into thinking this idea is annoying :) However, > there is a mathematical basis for including topology (and > other nontraditional) information in scheduling decisions. There is also precedent for this in manufacturing scheduling where you optimize your total systems by identifying the prime bottleneck and carefully managing that single point in the chain of operations. I'm not hung up on a specific implementation, just trying to present a concrete example that could be a starting point. And until today, I knew nothing about the P4P effort which seems to be working in the same direction. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 18:47:57 2008 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> References: <1003284887.79861208989579680.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Message-ID: <75cb24520804231647v6774cd09jf15d5ab5d0206754@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Laird Popkin wrote: > I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network information and getting ISP- > provided network information) as being complimentary. As you point out, for any ISP that doesn't > provide network data, we're better off figuring out what we can to be smarter than 'random'. So while I > prefer getting better data from ISP's, that's not holding us back from doing what we can without that > data. ok, sounds better :) or more reasonable, or not immediately doomed to blockage :) 'more realistic' even. > ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good > reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) > that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and > percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The > iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. What's to keep the itracker from being the new 'napster megaserver'? I suppose if it just trades map info or lookup (ala dns lookups) and nothing about torrent/share content things are less sensitive from a privacy perspective. and a single point of failure of the network perspective. Latency requirements seem to be interesting for this as well... at least dependent upon the model for sharing of the mapping data. I'd think that a lookup model served the client base better (instead of downloading many large files of maps in order to determine the best peers to use). There's also a sensitivity to the part of the network graph and which perspective to use for the client -> peer locality mapping. It's interesting at least :) Thanks! -Chris (also, as an aside, your mail client seems to be making each paragraph one long unbroken line... which drives at least pine and gmail a bit bonkers...and makes quoting messages a much more manual process than it should be.) From randy at psg.com Thu Apr 24 05:30:55 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:30:55 +0900 Subject: [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board Message-ID: <4810615F.604@psg.com> dear uk sisters, brothers, and undecideds, if you are a nomintet voting member or know someone who is, i strongly encourage you to read these two documents, and particularly , and to vote the candidates running against the greedy domainer slime trying to capture nominet. thanks for listening. randy From karnaugh at karnaugh.za.net Thu Apr 24 07:47:38 2008 From: karnaugh at karnaugh.za.net (Colin Alston) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:47:38 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? Message-ID: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> Has anyone else noticed strange things with support.microsoft.com? If I wget it ('http://support.microsoft.com/') from anywhere, I get an index.html fine. If I use lynx, I get gibberish (gzipped content, without a correct header) If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it doesn't understand the content either. Looks like either they are not correctly encoding the content based on browser capabilities. From tme at multicasttech.com Thu Apr 24 08:07:26 2008 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:07:26 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> Message-ID: <13FB2733-D1E8-4D44-BEC0-4F5B6E7D5885@multicasttech.com> It looks to me like they are doing file compression on the site. (E.g., there seems to be an index.html.gz file there.) This practice is described in "High Performance Web Sites" and other fine publications. I would be curious to know if this is a problem with Lynx or with their site setup. Regards Marshall On Apr 24, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Colin Alston wrote: > Has anyone else noticed strange things with support.microsoft.com? > > If I wget it ('http://support.microsoft.com/') from anywhere, I get an > index.html fine. > > If I use lynx, I get gibberish (gzipped content, without a correct > header) > > If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it > doesn't understand the content either. > > Looks like either they are not correctly encoding the content based on > browser capabilities. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From marc at let.de Thu Apr 24 08:08:35 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:08:35 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> Message-ID: <99258EFE-C75E-45CC-8AAF-0554BE9A6579@let.de> Am 24.04.2008 um 14:47 schrieb Colin Alston: > Has anyone else noticed strange things with support.microsoft.com? > > If I wget it ('http://support.microsoft.com/') from anywhere, I get an > index.html fine. > > If I use lynx, I get gibberish (gzipped content, without a correct > header) > > If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it > doesn't understand the content either. > > Looks like either they are not correctly encoding the content based on > browser capabilities. hi colin , i checked the page , you seems right ;) This page is not Valid (no Doctype found)! http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 40 errors ;) Marc > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From bohara at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 08:25:34 2008 From: bohara at gmail.com (Ben O'Hara) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:34 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> Message-ID: <2b36e660804240625x2980480ahcac2408f862feec0@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Colin Alston wrote: > Has anyone else noticed strange things with support.microsoft.com? > > If I wget it ('http://support.microsoft.com/') from anywhere, I get an > index.html fine. > > If I use lynx, I get gibberish (gzipped content, without a correct header) > > If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it > doesn't understand the content either. > > Looks like either they are not correctly encoding the content based on > browser capabilities. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > We had a problem this morning accessing it via a squid proxy, worked fine direct but not via squid. Fixed it with a # Fix support.microsoft.com by removing Accept-Encoding header acl support.microsoft.com dstdomain support.microsoft.com header_access Accept-Encoding deny support.microsoft.com Ben -- Internet Explorer is a program that allows you to access the Internet. And vice versa. From michael.holstein at csuohio.edu Thu Apr 24 08:30:39 2008 From: michael.holstein at csuohio.edu (Michael Holstein) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Message-ID: <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> > ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. > > Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate) ultimately end up being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest groups" and thus be ignored by the p2p users? Cheers, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University From jbates at brightok.net Thu Apr 24 08:29:33 2008 From: jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:29:33 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> Message-ID: <48108B3D.3050303@brightok.net> Colin Alston wrote: > If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it > doesn't understand the content either. IE in particular using HTTP 1.1 by default, but has HTTP 1.1 via proxy turned off. It's a check box in the advanced tab. Also required when your proxy does it's own compression to make dialup slightly more useable. Jack From jutta at rainbow.or.at Thu Apr 24 08:38:03 2008 From: jutta at rainbow.or.at (Jutta Zalud) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:38:03 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <13FB2733-D1E8-4D44-BEC0-4F5B6E7D5885@multicasttech.com> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> <13FB2733-D1E8-4D44-BEC0-4F5B6E7D5885@multicasttech.com> Message-ID: <4823721765.20080424153803@nextra.at> Marshall Eubanks wrote on 24. April 2008 at 15:07: > It looks to me like they are doing file compression on the site. > (E.g., there seems to be an index.html.gz file there.) > This practice is described in "High Performance Web Sites" and other > fine publications. I > would be curious to know if this is a problem with Lynx or with their > site setup. Looks more like a problem with Microsoft's site setup. Lynx has no problems with html.gz my own testsite http://www1.netzwerklabor.at/forum/ (you may use it for testing, but it is *not* on a high performance server ;) Regards, Jutta From gonnason at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 08:38:11 2008 From: gonnason at gmail.com (Mike Gonnason) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:38:11 -0800 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> Message-ID: <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein wrote: > > > ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. > > > > > > Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate) ultimately end up > being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest groups" > and thus be ignored by the p2p users? > > Cheers, > > Michael Holstein > Cleveland State University This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright mess gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for how long. -Mike Gonnason From keith at pando.com Thu Apr 24 08:48:26 2008 From: keith at pando.com (Keith O'Neill) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:48:26 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48108FAA.7000103@pando.com> The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more efficient way, all the iTracker does is talk to another p2p tracker and is used for network topology, has no caching or file information or user information.. Keith O'Neill Pando Networks Mike Gonnason wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein > wrote: > >> > ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. >> > >> > >> >> Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate) ultimately end up >> being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest groups" >> and thus be ignored by the p2p users? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael Holstein >> Cleveland State University >> > > This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright mess > gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of > logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of > information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for > how long. > > -Mike Gonnason > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Apr 24 08:52:42 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:52:42 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> Message-ID: > Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate) > ultimately end up being co-opted by the lawyers for the > various industry "interest groups" > and thus be ignored by the p2p users? To bring this back to network operations, it doesn't much matter what lawyers and end users do. The bottom line is that if P2P traffic takes up too much bandwidth at the wrong points of the network or the wrong times of day, then ISPs will do things like blocking it, disrupting connections(Comcast), and traffic shaping (artificial congestion). The end users will get slower downloads as a result. Or, everybody can put their heads together, make something that works for ISPs operationally, and give the end users faster downloads. The whole question is how to multicast content over the Internet in the most cost effective way. --Michael Dillon From bjorn at mork.no Thu Apr 24 08:49:05 2008 From: bjorn at mork.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Mork?=) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:49:05 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> (Colin Alston's message of "Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:47:38 +0200") References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> Message-ID: <877ienfjn2.fsf@obelix.mork.no> Colin Alston writes: > Has anyone else noticed strange things with support.microsoft.com? > > If I wget it ('http://support.microsoft.com/') from anywhere, I get an > index.html fine. > > If I use lynx, I get gibberish (gzipped content, without a correct header) > > If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it > doesn't understand the content either. > > Looks like either they are not correctly encoding the content based on > browser capabilities. Not only that. They are actually redirecting to a 404 not found page based on User-Agent. Compare these two requests: bjorn at canardo:~$ telnet support.microsoft.com 80 Trying 207.46.248.248... Connected to support.microsoft.akadns.net. Escape character is '^]'. HEAD / HTTP/1.1 Host: support.microsoft.com Connection: close HTTP/1.1 302 Found Connection: close Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:43:58 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0 P3P: CP="ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo CNT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI" X-Powered-By: ASP.NET ETag: X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 Location: /default.aspx?scid=gp;[ln];gsserr404&style=error&errurl=%2fDefault.aspx Set-Cookie: .ASPXANONYMOUS=JUEKFqPcyAEkAAAAZWU4OTVjZDktZTQyNi00ODNkLTkxMmMtMmZiNjhjZDg4NDYyIaA8To0Ty4xrBwpDO9AYeo974f81; expires=Thu, 03-Jul-2008 00:23:58 GMT; path=/; HttpOnly Cache-Control: private Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 196 Connection closed by foreign host. bjorn at canardo:~$ telnet support.microsoft.com 80 Trying 207.46.248.248... Connected to support.microsoft.akadns.net. Escape character is '^]'. HEAD / HTTP/1.1 Host: support.microsoft.com Connection: close User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30) HTTP/1.1 200 OK Connection: close Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:46:13 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0 P3P: CP="ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo CNT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI" ETag: X-Powered-By: ASP.NET X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 Cache-Control: public Expires: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:45:06 GMT Vary: * Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 28183 Connection closed by foreign host. The site is designed specifically NOT to work except if you've got an approved browser. I guess they just don't want lynx users there... Bj?rn From neil at domino.org Thu Apr 24 09:01:31 2008 From: neil at domino.org (Neil J. McRae) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:01:31 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board Message-ID: <20080424140146.64A3CA6ECC@defiant.domino.org> Yes strongly agreed and Randy thanks for raising this here. -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush Sent: 24 April 2008 11:30 To: North American Network Operators Group Subject: [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board dear uk sisters, brothers, and undecideds, if you are a nomintet voting member or know someone who is, i strongly encourage you to read these two documents, and particularly , and to vote the candidates running against the greedy domainer slime trying to capture nominet. thanks for listening. randy _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From cstone at axint.net Thu Apr 24 09:03:04 2008 From: cstone at axint.net (Chris Stone) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:03:04 -0600 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <877ienfjn2.fsf@obelix.mork.no> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> <877ienfjn2.fsf@obelix.mork.no> Message-ID: <48109318.70900@axint.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Bj?rn Mork wrote: > Not only that. They are actually redirecting to a 404 not found page > based on User-Agent. Compare these two requests: > > The site is designed specifically NOT to work except if you've got an > approved browser. I guess they just don't want lynx users there... All the more reason to tell M$ to kiss off and move to other solutions. It's only the beginning..... Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIEJMYnSVip47FEdMRChmzAJ41NsMJsCaHN1ztQGbIRackt6Q0pgCeNRyl lww1JZ1qWSlzy/U12YS+IhQ= =twCT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From karnaugh at karnaugh.za.net Thu Apr 24 09:10:00 2008 From: karnaugh at karnaugh.za.net (Colin Alston) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:00 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] support.microsoft.com? In-Reply-To: <2b36e660804240625x2980480ahcac2408f862feec0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4810816A.8070407@karnaugh.za.net> <2b36e660804240625x2980480ahcac2408f862feec0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <481094B8.2080800@karnaugh.za.net> Ben O'Hara wrote: > Fixed it with a > > # Fix support.microsoft.com by removing > Accept-Encoding header > acl support.microsoft.com dstdomain > support.microsoft.com > header_access Accept-Encoding deny support.microsoft.com Seems squid3 needs some slightly different hackdashery acl support.microsoft.com dstdomain support.microsoft.com reply_header_access Accept-Encoding deny support.microsoft.com request_header_access Accept-Encoding deny support.microsoft.com From jim at reptiles.org Thu Apr 24 09:16:48 2008 From: jim at reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:16:48 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board In-Reply-To: <20080424140146.64A3CA6ECC@defiant.domino.org> References: <20080424140146.64A3CA6ECC@defiant.domino.org> Message-ID: <20080424141648.GA70735@reptiles.org> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:01:31PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Yes strongly agreed and Randy thanks for raising this here. as i recall, CIRA, the Canadian equivilent of Nominet, a few years ago, made some serious changes to its structure/by-laws/etc in order to prevent/reduce the possibility of a similar "take-over". other registries might want to take note. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush > Sent: 24 April 2008 11:30 > To: North American Network Operators Group > Subject: [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board > > dear uk sisters, brothers, and undecideds, > > if you are a nomintet voting member or know someone who is, i strongly > encourage you to read these two documents, > and particularly > , > and to vote the candidates running against the greedy domainer slime > trying to capture nominet. > > thanks for listening. > > randy > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog -- Jim Mercer jim at reptiles.org +971 55 410-5633 "I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak." - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, "Who are you and where are you going?" From a.harrowell at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 09:24:26 2008 From: a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:24:26 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Mike Gonnason wrote: > > This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright mess > gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of > logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of > information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for > how long. A good point about the approach of announcing a list of prefixes and preference metrics, rather than doing lookups for each peer individually, is that the supernode's logs will only tell you who used a p2p client at all; nothing about what they did with it. If you have to lookup each peer, the log would be enough to start building a social graph of the p2p network, which would be a good start towards knowing who to send the nastygram to. Reading the following description of the P4P group's current approach, this looks like it's what they're doing: >The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that >processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and >percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. From laird at pando.com Thu Apr 24 10:40:19 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [NANOG] P2P traffic optimization Was: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <1503857554.96011209051233354.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Message-ID: <1380441752.96031209051619316.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> Replies below: - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" To: "Laird Popkin" Cc: "Alexander Harrowell" , "Doug Pasko" , nanog at nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:47:57 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: P2P traffic optimization Was: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Laird Popkin wrote: > I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network information and getting ISP- > provided network information) as being complimentary. As you point out, for any ISP that doesn't > provide network data, we're better off figuring out what we can to be smarter than 'random'. So while I > prefer getting better data from ISP's, that's not holding us back from doing what we can without that > data. ok, sounds better :) or more reasonable, or not immediately doomed to blockage :) 'more realistic' even. - Thanks. Given that there are many thousands of ISP's, an incremental approach seemed best. :-) > ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good > reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) > that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and > percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The > iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. What's to keep the itracker from being the new 'napster megaserver'? I suppose if it just trades map info or lookup (ala dns lookups) and nothing about torrent/share content things are less sensitive from a privacy perspective. and a single point of failure of the network perspective. - That's a good point. The iTracker never knows what's moving in the P2P network. We are comparing two recommendation models, which expose different levels of information. In the 'general' model, the iTracker knows nothing about the p2p network, but provides a recommendation matrix based purely on the ISP's network resources and policies. In the 'per torrent' model, the iTracker receives information about peer distribution (e.g. there are many seeds in NYC, and many downloaders in Chicago), in which case it can make peering recommendations based on that knowledge. The latter approach seems like it should be better able to 'tune' communications (to reduce maximum link utilization, etc.), but it requires the p2p network to provide real-time information about swarm distribution, which involves more communications, and exposes more details of the network to the iTracker, raising some privacy concerns. Admittedly the iTracker doesn't know what the swarm is delivering, but it would know (in network terms) where the users in that swarm are, for example. Latency requirements seem to be interesting for this as well... at least dependent upon the model for sharing of the mapping data. I'd think that a lookup model served the client base better (instead of downloading many large files of maps in order to determine the best peers to use). There's also a sensitivity to the part of the network graph and which perspective to use for the client -> peer locality mapping. - The network data is loaded into the p2p networks's Tracker, and used locally there, so there's no external communications during normal p2p network operation. The communication pattern in P4P (current, at any rate - it's still evolving) is that the P2P network's Tracker polls the P4P iTracker periodically to receive updated map files. In the case of the 'general' weight map, it could be one update every few minutes (or every day, etc., depending on how often the ISP cares to update network information). In the case of 'per torrent' optimization, it's an update per swarm every few minutes, which is much more messaging, so it might only make sense to do this for a very small number of the most popular swarms. It's interesting at least :) Thanks! -Chris (also, as an aside, your mail client seems to be making each paragraph one long unbroken line... which drives at least pine and gmail a bit bonkers...and makes quoting messages a much more manual process than it should be.) - Sorry - I reconfigured to send 'plain text' email. Does it show up OK? I'm using Zimbra's web mail interface. From michael.holstein at csuohio.edu Thu Apr 24 10:50:24 2008 From: michael.holstein at csuohio.edu (Michael Holstein) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:50:24 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> Message-ID: <4810AC40.9000502@csuohio.edu> > Or, everybody can put their heads together, make something that > works for ISPs operationally, and give the end users faster > downloads. The whole question is how to multicast content over > the Internet in the most cost effective way. > This will work as long as the "optimization" strategy is content-agnostic. p2p users want their content netops want efficient utilization lawyers want logfiles You can have 2 out of 3. Cheers, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University From eoster at cs.ucla.edu Thu Apr 24 10:59:23 2008 From: eoster at cs.ucla.edu (Eric Osterweil) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:59:23 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: <48108FAA.7000103@pando.com> References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> <48108FAA.7000103@pando.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Keith O'Neill wrote: > The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more > efficient way, all the iTracker does is talk to another p2p tracker > and > is used for network topology, has no caching or file information or > user > information.. > After reading the P4P paper, it seems like the iTrackers have some large implications. Off the top of my head: - - The paper says, "An iTracker provides... network status/ topology..." doesn't it seem like you wouldn't want to send this to P2P clients? Is the "PID" supposed to preserve privacy here? I have some doubts about how well the PID helps after exposing ASN and LOC. - - As a P2P developer, wouldn't I be worried about giving the iTracker the ability to tell my clients that their upload/download capacity is 0 (or just above)? It seems like iTrackers are allowed to control P2P clients completely w/ this recommendation, right? That would be very useful for an ISP, but a very dangerous DoS vector to clients. These are just a couple of the thoughts that I had while reading. Eric > Keith O'Neill > Pando Networks > > Mike Gonnason wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein >> wrote: >> >>>> ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps >>>> as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that >>>> P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an >>>> iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides >>>> abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to >>>> the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are >>>> near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a >>>> trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate) >>> ultimately end up >>> being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest >>> groups" >>> and thus be ignored by the p2p users? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Michael Holstein >>> Cleveland State University >>> >> >> This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright >> mess >> gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of >> logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of >> information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for >> how long. >> >> -Mike Gonnason >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD4DBQFIEK5hK/tq6CJjZQIRAgXqAJd8t3XkmYqo1WYaJP7qOF4W67tYAJ9C5hZ+ iwVc8ZU8AJ3f98KCFCq8Eg== =LEPV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From drinking.coffee at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 11:06:09 2008 From: drinking.coffee at gmail.com (Matthew Walker) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:06:09 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] isotf.org / outages Message-ID: <027001c8a625$1c612b30$af02a8c0@orange> Can someone please recommend an alternate outages list, as it appears isoft.org is no longer functional. Thank You. From dhyde at hostmysite.com Thu Apr 24 11:24:12 2008 From: dhyde at hostmysite.com (Darrell Hyde) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:24:12 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast (AS 7922 -> 33491) issues? Message-ID: <1209054252.19901.50.camel@kenobi.hostmysite.net> I'm seeing tons of availability issues to networks with AS paths ending in "7922 33491". A couple of the prefixes in question are 98.214.0.0/15, 69.137.240.0/20, 73.117.0.0/16, and 67.175.0.0/16. I spoke with Abovenet earlier this morning - they say its due to L3 suppressing those announcements to some of their peers. Initially I thought they were just making things up, until I started seeing "% Network not in table" responses to BGP lookups on the router where I peer with Sprint: #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18 % Network not in table #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134 % Network not in table And yet... #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18 BGP routing table entry for 98.214.0.0/15, version 26493985 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 3 4 3491 7922 33491 63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098 6395 3356 7922 33491 216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56) Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134 BGP routing table entry for 69.137.240.0/20, version 26493909 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 3 4 3491 7922 33491 63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098 6395 3356 7922 33491 216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56) Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external Based on what I'm seeing, someone out there has to be seeing similar behavior. Anybody? Bueller? D. From laird at pando.com Thu Apr 24 11:24:38 2008 From: laird at pando.com (Laird Popkin) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:24:38 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] In-Reply-To: References: <636562471.79911208989846975.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> <48108B7F.4010308@csuohio.edu> <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com> <48108FAA.7000103@pando.com> Message-ID: <69900262-68A6-4A07-945D-BFED80B33E9C@pando.com> Interesting discussion. Comments below: On Apr 24, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Eric Osterweil wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Keith O'Neill wrote: > >> The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more >> efficient way, all the iTracker does is talk to another p2p tracker >> and >> is used for network topology, has no caching or file information or >> user >> information.. >> > > After reading the P4P paper, it seems like the iTrackers have some > large implications. Off the top of my head: > - - The paper says, "An iTracker provides... network status/ > topology..." doesn't it seem like you wouldn't want to send this to > P2P clients? Is the "PID" supposed to preserve privacy here? I have > some doubts about how well the PID helps after exposing ASN and LOC. The PID is an identifier of a POP, which is really just a grouping mechanism telling the P2P network that all of the nodes with IP addresses that match a list of prefixes are in "the same place" in network terms. The definition of "the same place" is up to the ISP - it can be metro area, region, or even local loop or cable head end, depending on the ISP's desire to localize traffic. The PID is an arbitrary string sent by the ISP, so it could be numbers, name of a city, etc., depending on how much the ISP wants to reveal. PID's are tied to ASN, but of course all IP's can be mapped to ASN easily, so that's not revealing new information. The information that the iTracker sends to the p2p network is: - ASN (which is public) - PID (e.g. "1234" or "New York") - For each PID, a list of IP prefixes that identify users in the PID - A weight matrix of how much the ISP wants peers to connect between each pair of PID's. For example, if the PID's were cities, the weights might be something like "NYC to Philadephia 30%, NYC to Chicago 25%, NYC to LA 2%", and so on. Or if the PID's are 'anonymized' then it could be something like "123 to 456 30%, 123 to 876 25%, 123 to 1432 2%" and so on. > - - As a P2P developer, wouldn't I be worried about giving the > iTracker > the ability to tell my clients that their upload/download capacity is > 0 (or just above)? It seems like iTrackers are allowed to control > P2P clients completely w/ this recommendation, right? That would be > very useful for an ISP, but a very dangerous DoS vector to clients. It's important to keep in mind that P4P doesn't control the P2P network, it's just an additional source of data provided to the P2P Trackers (for example) in addition to whatever else the P2P network already does, helping the p2p network make smarter peer assignments. But P4P doesn't tell p2p clients what to do, or give the ISP any control over the P2P network. Specifically, if the P4P data from one ISP is bad, the P2P network can (and presumably will) choose to ignore it. > These are just a couple of the thoughts that I had while reading. I appreciate your taking the time. This is a good discussion. > > Eric > >> Keith O'Neill >> Pando Networks >> >> Mike Gonnason wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps >>>>> as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that >>>>> P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an >>>>> iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides >>>>> abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to >>>>> the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are >>>>> near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a >>>>> trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate) >>>> ultimately end up >>>> being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest >>>> groups" >>>> and thus be ignored by the p2p users? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Michael Holstein >>>> Cleveland State University >>>> >>> >>> This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright >>> mess >>> gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of >>> logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of >>> information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for >>> how long. The P2P network doesn't provide this kind of information to the iTracker. We're comparing two models, "generic' and 'tuned per swarm'. In the 'generic' model, the P2P network is given one weight matrix, based purely on the ISP's network. In this model, the P2P network doesn't provide any information to the iTracker at all - they just request an updated weight matrix periodically so that when the ISP changes network structure or policies it's updated in the P2P network automatically. In the 'tuned per swarm' model, the P2P network provides information about peer distribution of each swarm's peers (e.g. there are seeds in NYC and downloaders in Chicago). With this information, the iTracker can provide a 'tuned' weight matrix for each swarm, which should in theory be better. This is something that we're going to test in the next field test, so we can put some numbers around it. This model requires more communications, and exposes more of the p2p network's information to the ISP, so it's important to be able to quantify the benefit to decide whether it's worth it. BTW, if this discussion is getting off topic for the NANOG mailing list, we can continue the discussion offline. Does anyone think that we should do so? >>> -Mike Gonnason >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NANOG mailing list >>> NANOG at nanog.org >>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) > > iD4DBQFIEK5hK/tq6CJjZQIRAgXqAJd8t3XkmYqo1WYaJP7qOF4W67tYAJ9C5hZ+ > iwVc8ZU8AJ3f98KCFCq8Eg== > =LEPV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog Laird Popkin CTO, Pando Networks 520 Broadway, 10th floor New York, NY 10012 laird at pando.com c) 646/465-0570 From ren.provo at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 11:43:46 2008 From: ren.provo at gmail.com (Ren Provo) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:43:46 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast (AS 7922 -> 33491) issues? In-Reply-To: <1209054252.19901.50.camel@kenobi.hostmysite.net> References: <1209054252.19901.50.camel@kenobi.hostmysite.net> Message-ID: <787581440804240943g17ee17abg3b6bb4d25b4e2caa@mail.gmail.com> Hi Darrell, This should be resolved shortly. -ren On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Darrell Hyde wrote: > I'm seeing tons of availability issues to networks with AS paths ending > in "7922 33491". A couple of the prefixes in question are 98.214.0.0/15, > 69.137.240.0/20, 73.117.0.0/16, and 67.175.0.0/16. > > I spoke with Abovenet earlier this morning - they say its due to L3 > suppressing those announcements to some of their peers. Initially I > thought they were just making things up, until I started seeing "% > Network not in table" responses to BGP lookups on the router where I > peer with Sprint: > > #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18 > % Network not in table > > #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134 > % Network not in table > > And yet... > > #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18 > BGP routing table entry for 98.214.0.0/15, version 26493985 > Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Advertised to update-groups: > 3 4 > 3491 7922 33491 > 63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best > Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098 > 6395 3356 7922 33491 > 216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56) > Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external > > #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134 > BGP routing table entry for 69.137.240.0/20, version 26493909 > Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Advertised to update-groups: > 3 4 > 3491 7922 33491 > 63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best > Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098 > 6395 3356 7922 33491 > 216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56) > Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external > > Based on what I'm seeing, someone out there has to be seeing similar > behavior. Anybody? Bueller? > > D. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From virendra.rode at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 13:58:30 2008 From: virendra.rode at gmail.com (virendra rode //) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:58:30 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] [Fwd: isotf outtages] Message-ID: <4810D856.6070105@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI -/ - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: isotf outtages Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:41:42 -0500 From: RVaughn To: drinking.coffee at gmail.com CC: virendra rode // , Gadi Evron Hi Matthew, As you noted in your NANOG post, the outtages list has been unavailable. We are in the process of moving the list to a new server home and anticipate having the list back on line soon. the critical question being how soon. Initially, I expected to have the list on line this week. There were a few glitches on some of the new installation so my estimate is now for the beginning of the next week - barring unforeseen operator induced errors which we have had more than our fair share of the past couple of weeks. Best, R -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIENhWpbZvCIJx1bcRAqq5AJ9zQ6jJWS7aI4s5h8tm/BFWwIHUlgCgoSkV 9rp6S2Kivh+r6+g+6bL8TLI= =oOqL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nanog at nanog.org Thu Apr 24 17:05:41 2008 From: nanog at nanog.org (nanog at nanog.org) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:05:41 -0000 Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost…WOW Message-ID: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! FREE International Shipping on all Orders! http://cvamedios.com/sale/ From LoganR at inhs.org Thu Apr 24 17:17:47 2008 From: LoganR at inhs.org (Logan, Robert) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:17:47 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW In-Reply-To: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> Message-ID: <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> Is this what the mail list has come to? -----Original Message----- From: nanog at nanog.org [mailto:nanog at nanog.org] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost...WOW Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! FREE International Shipping on all Orders! http://cvamedios.com/sale/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From billn at billn.net Thu Apr 24 17:21:51 2008 From: billn at billn.net (Bill Nash) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:21:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW In-Reply-To: <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> Message-ID: Express invitations for blackholing from the spammers. =) - billn On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Logan, Robert wrote: > Is this what the mail list has come to? > > -----Original Message----- > From: nanog at nanog.org [mailto:nanog at nanog.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold > for less than cost...WOW > > Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. > > Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! > Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, > Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, > Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! > FREE International Shipping on all Orders! > > http://cvamedios.com/sale/ > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From michal at krsek.cz Thu Apr 24 17:15:58 2008 From: michal at krsek.cz (Michal Krsek) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:15:58 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board References: <20080424140146.64A3CA6ECC@defiant.domino.org> <20080424141648.GA70735@reptiles.org> Message-ID: <010601c8a659$aa5163e0$6401a8c0@w2lan.cesnet.cz> >> Yes strongly agreed and Randy thanks for raising this here. > > as i recall, CIRA, the Canadian equivilent of Nominet, a few years ago, > made > some serious changes to its structure/by-laws/etc in order to > prevent/reduce > the possibility of a similar "take-over". > > other registries might want to take note. We (CZ.NIC - .cz) had also changed our structure a few years ago to be more safe against enemy take-over. Regards Michal Krsek From jp at seminte.lt Thu Apr 24 17:22:34 2008 From: jp at seminte.lt (Justas Poderys) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:22:34 +0300 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW In-Reply-To: <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> Message-ID: <4811082A.5020005@seminte.lt> Thanks god we're not receiving out-of-office replies via ml. Logan, Robert wrote: > Is this what the mail list has come to? > > -----Original Message----- > From: nanog at nanog.org [mailto:nanog at nanog.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold > for less than cost...WOW > > Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. > > Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! > Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, > Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, > Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! > FREE International Shipping on all Orders! > > http://cvamedios.com/sale/ > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > From brunner at nic-naa.net Thu Apr 24 17:23:23 2008 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:23:23 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] =?windows-1252?q?Never_seen_before!_Gucci_Prada_Chanel=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_Bally=2C_Dsquared=2C_Sold_for_less_than_cost=85WOW?= In-Reply-To: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> Message-ID: <4811085B.3050800@nic-naa.net> Can I get a size 43 wide with steel toes suitable for kicking routers somewhere proximal to the red buttons? In a comfortable office casual subdued pastel? nanog at nanog.org wrote: > Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. > > Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! > Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, > Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! > FREE International Shipping on all Orders! > > http://cvamedios.com/sale/ > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > From patrick at ianai.net Thu Apr 24 17:24:14 2008 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:24:14 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW In-Reply-To: References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> Message-ID: On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Bill Nash wrote: > Express invitations for blackholing from the spammers. =) Honestly, I hadn't thought of that. This could be spun as a feature. Have your spam filters feed a script which null-routes the URLs.... Nah, too easy to abuse, but still. :) Perhaps we should have a list rule that anyone silly enough to be infected and spew spam gets their posting privs removed until they beg forgiveness? -- TTFN, patrick > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Logan, Robert wrote: > >> Is this what the mail list has come to? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nanog at nanog.org [mailto:nanog at nanog.org] >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06 PM >> To: nanog at nanog.org >> Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold >> for less than cost...WOW >> >> Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. >> >> Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! >> Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, >> Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, >> Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and >> More! >> FREE International Shipping on all Orders! >> >> http://cvamedios.com/sale/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG at nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From rcorbin at hostmysite.com Thu Apr 24 17:24:58 2008 From: rcorbin at hostmysite.com (Raymond L. Corbin) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:24:58 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW In-Reply-To: <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> Message-ID: <609B96CBFE9ED64A9346C05705CA495203A0424A60@MBX02.corp.safesecureweb.com> I haven't gotten that yet...and I don't see it in my spam filters...what do the headers show? -Ray -----Original Message----- From: Logan, Robert [mailto:LoganR at inhs.org] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:18 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW Is this what the mail list has come to? -----Original Message----- From: nanog at nanog.org [mailto:nanog at nanog.org] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost...WOW Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! FREE International Shipping on all Orders! http://cvamedios.com/sale/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From rcorbin at hostmysite.com Thu Apr 24 17:29:12 2008 From: rcorbin at hostmysite.com (Raymond L. Corbin) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:29:12 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> Message-ID: <609B96CBFE9ED64A9346C05705CA495203A0424A61@MBX02.corp.safesecureweb.com> Oops I stand corrected...I got it too :-x -Ray -----Original Message----- From: Raymond L. Corbin Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:25 PM To: 'Logan, Robert'; nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW I haven't gotten that yet...and I don't see it in my spam filters...what do the headers show? -Ray -----Original Message----- From: Logan, Robert [mailto:LoganR at inhs.org] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:18 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW Is this what the mail list has come to? -----Original Message----- From: nanog at nanog.org [mailto:nanog at nanog.org] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost...WOW Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! FREE International Shipping on all Orders! http://cvamedios.com/sale/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From tim at yocum.org Thu Apr 24 17:33:05 2008 From: tim at yocum.org (Tim Yocum) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:33:05 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW In-Reply-To: <4811082A.5020005@seminte.lt> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> <0E96030790F35748A52A45D696E68414011732D6@IRMEXCH01.irm.inhs.org> <4811082A.5020005@seminte.lt> Message-ID: <14b99b330804241533k270ea6cft1dda58aaf690323c@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Justas Poderys wrote: > Thanks god we're not receiving out-of-office replies via ml. > > Logan, Robert wrote: > > Is this what the mail list has come to? All, We're aware of the issue, and we'll work with Merit to fix it. Please refrain from posting similar "me too"-style comments on this particular thread. In the future, please note that if you have comments regarding operation of the list or something that just doesn't look right, you can contact the MLC and mailing list admins directly at: admins at nanog.org. Your ongoing patience and support is, as always, very much appreciated. Thank you! - Tim From bzs at world.std.com Thu Apr 24 17:30:51 2008 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:30:51 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than costWOW In-Reply-To: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> References: <20080425130553.4316.qmail@vic-dsz7i5n2ori> Message-ID: <18449.2588.1111.613785@world.std.com> If we could arrange to see some samples in person I'm sure I could rustle up some other list members to meet you with our, um, checkbooks... -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From surfer at mauigateway.com Thu Apr 24 17:43:04 2008 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:43:04 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW Message-ID: <20080424154304.787D5C61@resin17.mta.everyone.net> --- patrick at ianai.net wrote: From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" Perhaps we should have a list rule that anyone silly enough to be infected and spew spam gets their posting privs removed until they beg forgiveness? ------------------------------------ Publicly! >;-) scott ------------ From earan at axtel.com.mx Thu Apr 24 22:02:26 2008 From: earan at axtel.com.mx (earan at axtel.com.mx) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:02:26 -0600 Subject: [NANOG] Erik Aran/SW/MTY/TELINOR is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 23/04/2008 and will not return until 12/05/2008. Estoy fuera de la ciudad para cualquier cuestion de Conectividad de Dx, Favor de contactar a Javier Rios al 81298278 o Ricardo Sanches ext 8111 From smackenzie at qf.org.qa Fri Apr 25 03:00:25 2008 From: smackenzie at qf.org.qa (Scott E. MacKenzie) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:00:25 +0300 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <4810D856.6070105@gmail.com> References: <4810D856.6070105@gmail.com> Message-ID: <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... Scott From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 25 03:33:15 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:33:15 +0900 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> References: <4810D856.6070105@gmail.com> <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> Message-ID: <4811974B.8090601@psg.com> Scott E. MacKenzie wrote: > Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for > Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? > > We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... you seem to have missed menog unfortunately. you may want to come to the afren meeting in rabat coming up, where things such as this are covered pretty deeply. randy From nanog at grrrrreg.net Fri Apr 25 05:34:51 2008 From: nanog at grrrrreg.net (Greg VILLAIN) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:34:51 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] Routing Policy Information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A399E99-D15B-4D7E-AC22-9379E8D58842@grrrrreg.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Fouant, Stefan wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere which > outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default > local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED, allowed > prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each > ISP one was a customer of to ascertain this information. I'm a bit late on that, but I'd tend to think this is commonly done on their RIR aut-num object. This should at least be true for Major Bandwidth providers. > Thanks in advance. > > Stefan Fouant Greg VILLAIN Freelance Network&Telco architecture consultant > Principal Network Engineer > NeuStar From cidr-report at potaroo.net Fri Apr 25 07:00:04 2008 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:00:04 +1000 (EST) Subject: [NANOG] BGP Update Report Message-ID: <200804251200.m3PC04RC081453@wattle.apnic.net> BGP Update Report Interval: 24-Mar-08 -to- 24-Apr-08 (32 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS9498 98654 1.3% 82.2 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 2 - AS9583 77229 1.0% 65.8 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 3 - AS24731 65871 0.9% 784.2 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 4 - AS8866 53641 0.7% 175.3 -- BTC-AS Bulgarian Telecommunication Company Plc. 5 - AS8151 49214 0.7% 30.1 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 6 - AS2386 47664 0.6% 32.8 -- INS-AS - AT&T Data Communications Services 7 - AS26829 45851 0.6% 45851.0 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC 8 - AS9198 44557 0.6% 100.8 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 9 - AS17974 41735 0.6% 90.1 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 10 - AS7738 33878 0.5% 114.5 -- Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A. 11 - AS6140 33191 0.5% 47.4 -- IMPSAT-USA - ImpSat USA, Inc. 12 - AS7018 33093 0.5% 21.9 -- ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 13 - AS4755 29980 0.4% 18.3 -- VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonomous System 14 - AS4795 29286 0.4% 103.1 -- INDOSAT2-ID INDOSATM2 ASN 15 - AS20115 29003 0.4% 23.2 -- CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications 16 - AS9829 27725 0.4% 41.2 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone 17 - AS702 27725 0.4% 49.5 -- AS702 Verizon Business EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe 18 - AS17488 26920 0.4% 24.7 -- HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over Cable Internet 19 - AS6306 25525 0.3% 543.1 -- Telcel, C.A 20 - AS11492 23438 0.3% 19.2 -- CABLEONE - CABLE ONE TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS26829 45851 0.6% 45851.0 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC 2 - AS19334 20417 0.3% 20417.0 -- SPORTLINE-DBC - SPORTLINE 3 - AS17487 19317 0.3% 19317.0 -- ICBCASIA-AP Industrial and Commercial Bank 4 - AS19017 15717 0.2% 15717.0 -- QUALCOMM-QWBS-LV - Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions 5 - AS30929 8794 0.1% 8794.0 -- HUTCB Hidrotechnical Faculty - Technical University 6 - AS42787 22936 0.3% 7645.3 -- MMIP-AS MultiMedia IP Ltd. 7 - AS42923 5870 0.1% 5870.0 -- PLK-AS PLK AS Number 8 - AS44656 4779 0.1% 4779.0 -- HOLOSFIND-ROMANIA HOLOSFIND SRL 9 - AS15136 4576 0.1% 4576.0 -- AS-NSPOF - NSPOF Communications Inc 10 - AS14895 12570 0.2% 4190.0 -- LAWSON-SOFTWARE - Lawson Software 11 - AS23082 17481 0.2% 3496.2 -- MPHI - Michigan Public Health Institute 12 - AS7257 6666 0.1% 3333.0 -- PREMIERE-GLOBAL-SERVICES-INC - Premiere Global Services, Inc. 13 - AS25024 3276 0.0% 3276.0 -- DECEUNINCK-PLASTICS Deceuninck Plastics Autonomous System 14 - AS29225 2590 0.0% 2590.0 -- TAIF-TELCOM-AS JSC TAIF-TELCOM 15 - AS36975 2431 0.0% 2431.0 -- CBA-AS 16 - AS39105 2389 0.0% 2389.0 -- CLASS-AS SC Class Computers And Service SRL 17 - AS28282 2147 0.0% 2147.0 -- DW7 CENTRO DE DADOS LTDA 18 - AS34378 1867 0.0% 1867.0 -- RUG-AS Razgulay Group 19 - AS21291 1788 0.0% 1788.0 -- OMEGABANK 8 Dragatsaniou str 20 - AS9747 13998 0.2% 1749.8 -- EZINTERNET-AS-AP EZInternet Pty Ltd TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 125.23.208.0/20 64352 0.8% AS9498 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 2 - 213.91.175.0/24 45907 0.6% AS8866 -- BTC-AS Bulgarian Telecommunication Company Plc. 3 - 12.108.254.0/24 45851 0.6% AS26829 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC 4 - 221.135.80.0/24 31863 0.4% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 5 - 193.33.184.0/23 22880 0.3% AS42787 -- MMIP-AS MultiMedia IP Ltd. 6 - 84.23.96.0/19 20571 0.3% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) AS34400 -- ASN-ETTIHADETISALAT Etihad Etisalat 7 - 63.169.11.0/24 20417 0.3% AS19334 -- SPORTLINE-DBC - SPORTLINE 8 - 220.241.83.0/24 19317 0.2% AS17487 -- ICBCASIA-AP Industrial and Commercial Bank 9 - 221.128.192.0/18 18875 0.2% AS18231 -- EXATT-AS-AP Exatt Technologies Private Ltd. 10 - 84.23.100.0/24 17919 0.2% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) AS34400 -- ASN-ETTIHADETISALAT Etihad Etisalat 11 - 124.7.192.0/24 16972 0.2% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 12 - 64.79.128.0/19 16740 0.2% AS23005 -- SWITCH-COMMUNICATIONS - SWITCH Communications Group LLC 13 - 63.82.84.0/24 15717 0.2% AS19017 -- QUALCOMM-QWBS-LV - Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions 14 - 203.63.26.0/24 13916 0.2% AS9747 -- EZINTERNET-AS-AP EZInternet Pty Ltd 15 - 81.180.108.0/24 8794 0.1% AS30929 -- HUTCB Hidrotechnical Faculty - Technical University 16 - 89.4.128.0/24 8594 0.1% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 17 - 125.57.60.0/24 8489 0.1% AS18306 -- MASANHANANET-AS-KR HANANET 18 - 89.4.130.0/24 8216 0.1% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 19 - 89.4.131.0/24 8053 0.1% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 20 - 203.101.87.0/24 7654 0.1% AS9498 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at merit.edu eof-list at ripe.net apops at apops.net routing-wg at ripe.net afnog at afnog.org From cidr-report at potaroo.net Fri Apr 25 07:00:02 2008 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:00:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: [NANOG] The Cidr Report Message-ID: <200804251200.m3PC02b6081448@wattle.apnic.net> This report has been generated at Fri Apr 25 21:19:56 2008 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 18-04-08 257852 164160 19-04-08 258035 163068 20-04-08 257852 163238 21-04-08 257993 164204 22-04-08 258148 164164 23-04-08 258324 164611 24-04-08 258585 163990 25-04-08 258634 164963 AS Summary 28182 Number of ASes in routing system 11885 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1614 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS4755 : VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonomous System 88502016 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS721 : DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 25Apr08 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 258735 164762 93973 36.3% All ASes AS4755 1614 219 1395 86.4% VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonomous System AS6389 1385 216 1169 84.4% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc. AS9498 1165 68 1097 94.2% BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. AS22773 934 99 835 89.4% CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. AS11492 1214 469 745 61.4% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE AS19262 899 185 714 79.4% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Internet Services Inc. AS4323 1417 717 700 49.4% TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. AS1785 1011 318 693 68.5% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. AS17488 1060 382 678 64.0% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over Cable Internet AS8151 1188 512 676 56.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V. AS18566 1043 393 650 62.3% COVAD - Covad Communications Co. AS18101 678 120 558 82.3% RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet Data Centre, AS6478 925 380 545 58.9% ATT-INTERNET3 - AT&T WorldNet Services AS2386 1400 879 521 37.2% INS-AS - AT&T Data Communications Services AS6197 989 517 472 47.7% BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS4766 851 393 458 53.8% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom AS19916 555 99 456 82.2% ASTRUM-0001 - OLM LLC AS855 650 198 452 69.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant AS22047 562 124 438 77.9% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. AS7018 1426 1019 407 28.5% ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services AS8103 569 166 403 70.8% STATE-OF-FLA - Florida Department of Management Services - Technology Program AS4812 484 82 402 83.1% CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group) AS17676 508 106 402 79.1% GIGAINFRA BB TECHNOLOGY Corp. AS5668 684 295 389 56.9% AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. AS7011 1096 710 386 35.2% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS - Frontier Communications of America, Inc. AS9443 455 78 377 82.9% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus Telecommunications AS3602 453 78 375 82.8% AS3602-RTI - Rogers Telecom Inc. AS6140 585 214 371 63.4% IMPSAT-USA - ImpSat USA, Inc. AS16814 426 64 362 85.0% NSS S.A. AS4808 517 157 360 69.6% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network Total 26743 9257 17486 65.4% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 24.38.0.0/17 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 24.48.0.0/13 AS19548 ADELPHIA-AS2 - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 24.51.159.0/24 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 24.54.224.0/19 AS20001 ROADRUNNER-WEST - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 24.75.160.0/19 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 24.75.192.0/18 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 24.142.40.0/21 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 24.142.160.0/19 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.0.0/17 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.128.0/18 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless Broadband via Satellite 63.140.213.0/24 AS22555 UTC - Universal Talkware Corporation 63.141.42.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 63.143.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 63.143.115.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 63.143.251.0/24 AS22555 UTC - Universal Talkware Corporation 63.248.0.0/16 AS3356 LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications 64.7.112.0/21 AS6453 GLOBEINTERNET TATA Communications 64.7.120.0/21 AS6453 GLOBEINTERNET TATA Communications 64.50.128.0/18 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc. 64.64.159.0/24 AS32004 BIG-ASN - Business Information Group, Inc. 64.144.0.0/15 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc. 64.188.0.0/16 AS3356 LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications 65.36.8.0/24 AS5696 65.36.9.0/24 AS5696 65.36.33.0/24 AS5696 65.36.52.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 66.11.32.0/20 AS6261 VISINET - Visionary Systems, Inc. 66.11.40.0/21 AS6261 VISINET - Visionary Systems, Inc. 66.54.91.0/24 AS30506 BLACKSUN-1 - Blacksun Technologies LLC 66.55.160.0/19 AS29994 66.64.96.0/20 AS3790 RADIGRAFICA COSTARRICENSE 66.180.239.0/24 AS35888 VIGNETTE - VIGNETTE CORPORATION 66.199.32.0/20 AS10397 WISP-AS - Wispnet, LLC 66.206.32.0/24 AS17787 PSEB-AS-PK Pakistan Software Export Board 66.206.33.0/24 AS17787 PSEB-AS-PK Pakistan Software Export Board 66.206.34.0/24 AS17787 PSEB-AS-PK Pakistan Software Export Board 66.206.35.0/24 AS17787 PSEB-AS-PK Pakistan Software Export Board 66.206.40.0/22 AS174 COGENT Cogent/PSI 66.206.44.0/23 AS174 COGENT Cogent/PSI 66.206.47.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom 66.207.32.0/20 AS23011 66.219.192.0/18 AS5048 FIBER - FIBERNET Corp. 67.20.0.0/14 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 67.22.64.0/21 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 68.64.0.0/13 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 68.64.58.0/24 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 68.168.0.0/14 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 68.232.0.0/14 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 69.71.192.0/20 AS13818 PHX-INTL-TELEPORT - Phoenix International Teleport 69.80.0.0/17 AS3043 AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 69.160.0.0/12 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 69.169.0.0/17 AS20001 ROADRUNNER-WEST - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 70.32.0.0/13 AS7843 ADELPHIA-AS - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 80.88.0.0/21 AS33774 DJAWEB 80.88.8.0/22 AS33774 DJAWEB 80.88.10.0/24 AS33774 DJAWEB 80.88.11.0/24 AS33774 DJAWEB 80.88.12.0/24 AS33779 wataniya-telecom-as 93.90.224.0/20 AS25086 URALTC-AS UTC AUTONOMUS SYSTEM EKATERINBURG, RUSSIA 95.192.0.0/16 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE NCC RIS project 95.255.248.0/21 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE NCC RIS project 137.0.0.0/13 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 151.135.0.0/16 AS4768 CLIX-NZ TelstraClear Ltd 159.3.211.0/24 AS2687 ASATTCA AT&T Global Network Services - AP 163.142.0.0/16 AS2500 WIDE-BB WIDE Project 166.63.0.0/16 AS33775 NITEL-AS 172.10.1.0/30 AS18305 POSNET POSDATA Co.,Ltd 192.9.200.0/24 AS3602 AS3602-RTI - Rogers Telecom Inc. 192.30.93.0/24 AS17757 HPAUS-AP HP Australia 192.30.94.0/24 AS17757 HPAUS-AP HP Australia 192.40.105.0/24 AS12582 TSF-DATANET-NGD-AS TSF MPLS VPN Services 192.64.85.0/24 AS1759 TSF-IP-CORE TeliaSonera Finland IP Network 192.69.107.0/24 AS1759 TSF-IP-CORE TeliaSonera Finland IP Network 192.69.108.0/24 AS1759 TSF-IP-CORE TeliaSonera Finland IP Network 192.69.177.0/24 AS1759 TSF-IP-CORE TeliaSonera Finland IP Network 192.70.164.0/24 AS25689 NRCNET-AS - National Research Council of Canada 192.96.36.0/24 AS5713 SAIX-NET 192.96.37.0/24 AS10474 NETACTIVE 192.96.135.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 192.96.136.0/23 AS2018 TENET-1 192.96.141.0/24 AS5713 SAIX-NET 192.96.143.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 192.96.145.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 192.96.177.0/24 AS6083 POSIX-AFRICA 192.101.45.0/24 AS2905 TICSA-ASN 192.101.46.0/24 AS6503 Avantel, S.A. 192.101.47.0/24 AS6503 Avantel, S.A. 192.101.64.0/21 AS702 AS702 Verizon Business EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe 192.101.67.0/24 AS21775 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 AS702 Verizon Business EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe 192.101.73.0/24 AS4765 WORLDNET-AS World Net & Services Co., Ltd. 192.101.74.0/24 AS1239 SPRINTLINK - Sprint 192.122.212.0/24 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest 192.124.252.0/22 AS680 DFN-IP service 192.131.233.0/24 AS7891 BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK2 - Bellsouth.Net 192.133.6.0/24 AS10282 EQUANT-CEEUR EQUANT AS for Central and Eastern Europe region 192.153.144.0/21 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 193.200.114.0/23 AS31530 SERVERCREW-AS Servercrew LTD Autonomes System 194.31.227.0/24 AS21461 TRANSFAIRNET Transfair-net GmbH Krefeld 194.246.72.0/23 AS8893 ARTFILES-AS Artfiles New Media GmbH 195.190.3.0/24 AS35393 EURO-WEB-AS Euro Web Network 195.190.5.0/24 AS35830 SIVIT-AS SIVIT Network - http://www.sivit.net/ 196.6.108.0/24 AS5713 SAIX-NET 196.10.119.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.10.122.0/23 AS2018 TENET-1 196.10.251.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.10.252.0/23 AS2018 TENET-1 196.10.254.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.101.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.102.0/23 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.104.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.121.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.125.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.126.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.169.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.174.0/23 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.176.0/21 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.192.0/22 AS2018 TENET-1 196.13.196.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 196.201.98.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS 196.216.132.0/24 AS9207 TAIDE-KE-NAIROBI Taide - Kenya POP 196.216.134.0/24 AS9207 TAIDE-KE-NAIROBI Taide - Kenya POP 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, Inc. 198.54.82.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 198.54.92.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 198.54.222.0/24 AS2018 TENET-1 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 198.97.80.0/20 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 198.144.96.0/20 AS12185 198.161.87.0/24 AS6539 GT-BELL - Bell Canada 198.167.0.0/16 AS7456 INTERHOP - Interhop Network SERVICES Inc. 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 198.169.0.0/16 AS803 SASKTEL - Saskatchewan Telecommunications 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange Services 199.9.128.0/17 AS668 ASN-ASNET-NET-AS - Defense Research and Engineering Network 199.10.0.0/16 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.0.0/21 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.128.0/18 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.130.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.131.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.132.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.134.0/24 AS3541 ITSDN-U4 - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.136.0/24 AS27044 DDN-ASNBLK1 - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.138.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.140.0/24 AS3544 ITSDN-U7 - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.142.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.144.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.148.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.150.0/24 AS6045 DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.152.0/24 AS27033 DDN-ASNBLK1 - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.153.0/24 AS27034 DDN-ASNBLK1 - DoD Network Information Center 199.114.154.0/24 AS1733 CENTAF-SWA - AF DDN PMO 199.114.156.0/24 AS1733 CENTAF-SWA - AF DDN PMO 199.114.160.0/24 AS1733 CENTAF-SWA - AF DDN PMO 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.123.0.0/18 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.123.80.0/21 AS721 DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 199.189.32.0/19 AS7332 IQUEST-AS - IQuest Internet 199.202.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 199.246.116.0/24 AS813 UUNET-CANADA - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 202.45.132.0/22 AS24314 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 INNOCOM-TELECOM - INNOCOM TELECOM 202.73.144.0/20 AS4788 TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet Service Provider 202.86.252.0/22 AS4748 RESOLINK-AS-AP Resources Link Network Limited 202.86.252.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.86.253.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.86.254.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.86.255.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.90.33.0/24 AS9830 SWIFTONLINE-AS-AP SWIFT ONLINE BORDER AS 202.90.40.0/24 AS9830 SWIFTONLINE-AS-AP SWIFT ONLINE BORDER AS 202.90.41.0/24 AS9830 SWIFTONLINE-AS-AP SWIFT ONLINE BORDER AS 202.90.42.0/24 AS9830 SWIFTONLINE-AS-AP SWIFT ONLINE BORDER AS 202.90.43.0/24 AS9830 SWIFTONLINE-AS-AP SWIFT ONLINE BORDER AS 202.90.44.0/24 AS9830 SWIFTONLINE-AS-AP SWIFT ONLINE BORDER AS 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network 202.94.70.0/24 AS9837 POWERTEL-AP Powertel Ltd 202.124.195.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom 202.124.207.0/24 AS17911 BRAINPK-AS-AP Brain Telecommunication Ltd. 202.136.254.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network 202.136.255.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network 202.164.100.0/24 AS18101 RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet Data Centre, 202.176.228.0/24 AS17988 SINOSAT-AS-AP SINOSAT (HONG KONG) LIMITED 202.176.232.0/24 AS17988 SINOSAT-AS-AP SINOSAT (HONG KONG) LIMITED 202.181.32.0/24 AS4645 ASN-HKNET-AP HKNet Co. Ltd 203.2.128.0/17 AS17175 NSS-UK New Skies Satellites UK AS 203.12.45.0/24 AS4854 NETSPACE-AS-AP Netspace Online Systems 203.62.0.0/17 AS7575 AARNET-AS-AP Australian Academic and Reasearch Network (AARNet) 203.78.48.0/20 AS9299 IPG-AS-AP Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company 203.89.139.0/24 AS17911 BRAINPK-AS-AP Brain Telecommunication Ltd. 203.111.192.0/20 AS7473 SINGTEL-AS-AP Singapore Telecom 203.112.97.0/24 AS9942 COMINDICO-AP SOUL Converged Communications Australia 203.112.111.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.113.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.114.0/24 AS4802 ASN-IINET iiNet Limited 203.112.116.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.117.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.118.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.119.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.120.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.121.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.112.127.0/24 AS7474 OPTUSCOM-AS01-AU SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 203.128.128.0/19 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street 203.128.128.0/24 AS23849 CNNIC-NET263-AP Beijing Capital-online science development Co.,Ltd. 203.152.136.0/23 AS23649 NEWSKIES-AS-AP New Skies Satellites, Hong Kong Teleport 203.152.138.0/23 AS23649 NEWSKIES-AS-AP New Skies Satellites, Hong Kong Teleport 203.152.142.0/24 AS23649 NEWSKIES-AS-AP New Skies Satellites, Hong Kong Teleport 203.152.143.0/24 AS23649 NEWSKIES-AS-AP New Skies Satellites, Hong Kong Teleport 203.160.110.0/23 AS7643 VNN-AS-AP Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications (VNPT) 204.9.216.0/23 AS7893 BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK2 - Bellsouth.Net 204.9.217.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 204.9.218.0/23 AS7893 BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK2 - Bellsouth.Net 204.13.140.0/22 AS7270 NET2PHONE - Net2Phone Corp. 204.16.120.0/23 AS12077 204.16.122.0/23 AS12077 204.19.14.0/23 AS577 BACOM - Bell Canada 204.48.58.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 204.48.60.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 204.154.125.0/24 AS3952 TELLABS-ASN - TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.154.126.0/24 AS3952 TELLABS-ASN - TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.154.127.0/24 AS3952 TELLABS-ASN - TELLABS Operations, Inc. 205.150.0.0/15 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 206.28.176.0/21 AS1273 CW Cable and Wireless plc 206.162.224.0/19 AS23464 ILCSNET - Interlink Computer Services 206.180.240.0/20 AS12083 KNOLOGY-NET - Knology Holdings 206.220.240.0/24 AS10764 STARTAP - National Center for Supercomputing Applications 206.220.240.64/26 AS22335 MREN - Metropolitan Research and Education Network 206.220.240.128/25 AS10764 STARTAP - National Center for Supercomputing Applications 206.220.240.160/30 AS10764 STARTAP - National Center for Supercomputing Applications 206.220.240.220/32 AS10764 STARTAP - National Center for Supercomputing Applications 206.220.241.0/24 AS10764 STARTAP - National Center for Supercomputing Applications 207.98.192.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 207.98.209.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 207.98.223.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 207.191.128.0/19 AS10887 BPSI-AS - BPSI Internet Services 207.204.168.0/24 AS15150 BELLTECH-AS - BELLWETHER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 207.204.222.0/24 AS22773 CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc. 207.254.192.0/19 AS11881 208.38.192.0/18 AS3043 AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 208.38.192.0/21 AS14237 BEAMSPEED1 - Beamspeed 208.38.202.0/24 AS14237 BEAMSPEED1 - Beamspeed 208.38.203.0/24 AS14237 BEAMSPEED1 - Beamspeed 208.38.204.0/22 AS14237 BEAMSPEED1 - Beamspeed 209.54.93.0/24 AS22773 CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. 209.54.111.0/24 AS22773 CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. 209.54.123.0/24 AS6062 NETPLEX - NETPLEX 209.54.240.0/21 AS10887 BPSI-AS - BPSI Internet Services 209.105.224.0/19 AS20074 209.140.90.0/24 AS14461 NTSL - NET SOLUTIONS 209.140.224.0/21 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.140.234.0/24 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.140.235.0/24 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.140.236.0/24 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.140.237.0/24 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.140.238.0/24 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.140.239.0/24 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.141.16.0/21 AS10573 WEBNEXUS - WebNexus Communications Inc. 209.141.48.0/22 AS14461 NTSL - NET SOLUTIONS 209.145.192.0/18 AS3043 AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 209.145.204.0/22 AS14237 BEAMSPEED1 - Beamspeed 209.207.24.0/24 AS21829 JADETECH-NET - Jade Technologies, Inc. 209.207.36.0/24 AS21829 JADETECH-NET - Jade Technologies, Inc. 210.5.128.0/20 AS4837 CHINA169-BACKBONE CNCGROUP China169 Backbone 213.150.192.0/21 AS29571 CITelecom-AS 213.150.200.0/22 AS29571 CITelecom-AS 213.150.201.0/24 AS29338 AFOL-AS Used by Africaonline Operations 213.150.202.0/24 AS41042 SKYVISION SkyVision Network Services 216.37.114.0/23 AS3549 GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. 216.37.120.0/23 AS13377 216.59.0.0/17 AS3356 LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications 216.99.16.0/24 AS6395 LVLT-6395 - Level 3 Communications, Inc. 216.99.20.0/24 AS6395 LVLT-6395 - Level 3 Communications, Inc. 216.119.128.0/24 AS14345 CRESCENT-TECH - Crescent Technology 216.119.131.0/24 AS14345 CRESCENT-TECH - Crescent Technology 216.119.141.0/24 AS14345 CRESCENT-TECH - Crescent Technology 216.162.96.0/19 AS7393 CYBERCON - CYBERCON, INC. 216.172.198.0/24 AS22773 CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. 216.172.199.0/24 AS22773 CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. 216.210.86.0/24 AS577 BACOM - Bell Canada 216.235.96.0/19 AS13645 BROADBANDONE - BroadbandONE, Inc. 216.240.240.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 216.240.241.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 216.240.242.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 216.251.207.0/24 AS1239 SPRINTLINK - Sprint 217.78.71.0/24 AS12491 IPPLANET-AS IPPlanet 217.78.72.0/24 AS12491 IPPLANET-AS IPPlanet 217.78.73.0/24 AS12491 IPPLANET-AS IPPlanet Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at merit.edu eof-list at ripe.net apops at apops.net routing-wg at ripe.net afnog at afnog.org From robert at ufl.edu Fri Apr 25 07:16:57 2008 From: robert at ufl.edu (Robert D. Scott) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:16:57 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> Message-ID: <066b01c8a6ce$4208dcd0$0101a8c0@Robert> www.nlr.net www.internet2.edu These are the major players in the Education RONS that are self owned and managed. The nlr site will show the regional Robert D. Scott Robert at ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Receptionist University of Florida 352-392-9440 FAX Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 -----Original Message----- From: Scott E. MacKenzie [mailto:smackenzie at qf.org.qa] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM To: NANOG Subject: [NANOG] DWDM Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... Scott _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From K.J.Barrass at leeds.ac.uk Fri Apr 25 08:13:29 2008 From: K.J.Barrass at leeds.ac.uk (Kevin Barrass) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:13:29 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <066b01c8a6ce$4208dcd0$0101a8c0@Robert> References: <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> <066b01c8a6ce$4208dcd0$0101a8c0@Robert> Message-ID: The UK research and Education network is based on a DWDM backbone as far as I know. Some of the regional networks on the Janet backbone also use DWDM. http://www.ja.net/services/lightpath/index.html Regards Kev -----Original Message----- From: Robert D. Scott [mailto:robert at ufl.edu] Sent: 25 April 2008 13:17 To: 'Scott E. MacKenzie'; 'NANOG' Subject: Re: [NANOG] DWDM www.nlr.net www.internet2.edu These are the major players in the Education RONS that are self owned and managed. The nlr site will show the regional Robert D. Scott Robert at ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Receptionist University of Florida 352-392-9440 FAX Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 -----Original Message----- From: Scott E. MacKenzie [mailto:smackenzie at qf.org.qa] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM To: NANOG Subject: [NANOG] DWDM Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... Scott _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From neil at DOMINO.ORG Fri Apr 25 08:31:44 2008 From: neil at DOMINO.ORG (Neil J. McRae) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:31:44 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: References: <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> <066b01c8a6ce$4208dcd0$0101a8c0@Robert> Message-ID: <005f01c8a6d8$b4b1d840$1e1588c0$@ORG> The current technologies for DWDM have really made it technology that's reasonably straight forward to deploy. The last generation was a nightmare! Tuneable optics, dispersion compensation, and ROADM have made a substantial difference to deploying and operating DWDM networks. I had experience with the former generation system from Nortel which although very reliable it was very resource intensive to deploy new services, the latest CPL technology from Nortel is a real breakthrough, for once a vendor has listened and understood the challenges for operators and actively addressed our concerns. -----Original Message----- From: Scott E. MacKenzie [mailto:smackenzie at qf.org.qa] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM To: NANOG Subject: [NANOG] DWDM Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... Scott From crpopovi at nauticom.net Fri Apr 25 08:51:02 2008 From: crpopovi at nauticom.net (Clinton Popovich) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:51:02 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 Message-ID: <01c001c8a6db$661c79d0$32556d70$@net> Greetings all, I am having a bit of trouble with Road Runner, we have been blocked repeatedly for email that I believe to have been sent out on the 19th. I have about 50,000 customers sitting behind this old mail server currently. I have emailed back in forth with someone from roadrunner and when he sends me back the spam example it is always from the 19th. So far from the spam sent out on that day we have been blocked 5 times. Does anyone have a contact for Road Runner that I might be able to have. Thanks, Clinton Popovich Systems Administrator Consolidated Communications, Inc. Formerly Nauticom Internet Services Tel: 724-933-9540 Fax: 724-933-9888 Email: Clinton.Popovich at consolidated.com Road runner bounce example. > The original message was received at Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:43:41 -0400 (EDT) > from 5.ksyr6.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.174.38] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > (reason: 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to cdptpa-smtpin01.mail.rr.com.: > <<< 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com > <<< 550 ERROR: Mail Refused - 72.22.18.105 - See > http://security.rr.com/cgi-bin/block-lookup?72.22.18.105 > ... while talking to cdptpa-smtpin02.mail.rr.com.: > <<< 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com > <<< 550 ERROR: Mail Refused - 72.22.18.105 - See > http://security.rr.com/cgi-bin/block-lookup?72.22.18.105 > 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable > From mevans at alphatheory.com Fri Apr 25 09:05:07 2008 From: mevans at alphatheory.com (Matthew Evans) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:05:07 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 In-Reply-To: <01c001c8a6db$661c79d0$32556d70$@net> References: <01c001c8a6db$661c79d0$32556d70$@net> Message-ID: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ACF0@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Road Runner utilizes a volume based spam block from my understanding. If you send over X amount of email in Y amount of time, they block you. You need to create a rule that staggers the number of messages you send to all rr.com domains so as to not trigger the threshold and become blocked. See here for the limits: http://security.rr.com/spam.htm#ratelimit Here's a link to get unblocked: http://security.rr.com/mail_blocks.htm Good luck. Matthew Evans, MCSA Alpha Theory | "the right decision, every time." 2201 Coronation Blvd., Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28227 www.alphatheory.com ALPHA THEORY QUICK DEMO (click here) -----Original Message----- From: Clinton Popovich [mailto:crpopovi at nauticom.net] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:51 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 Greetings all, I am having a bit of trouble with Road Runner, we have been blocked repeatedly for email that I believe to have been sent out on the 19th. I have about 50,000 customers sitting behind this old mail server currently. I have emailed back in forth with someone from roadrunner and when he sends me back the spam example it is always from the 19th. So far from the spam sent out on that day we have been blocked 5 times. Does anyone have a contact for Road Runner that I might be able to have. Thanks, Clinton Popovich Systems Administrator Consolidated Communications, Inc. Formerly Nauticom Internet Services Tel: 724-933-9540 Fax: 724-933-9888 Email: Clinton.Popovich at consolidated.com Road runner bounce example. > The original message was received at Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:43:41 -0400 (EDT) > from 5.ksyr6.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.174.38] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > (reason: 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to cdptpa-smtpin01.mail.rr.com.: > <<< 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com > <<< 550 ERROR: Mail Refused - 72.22.18.105 - See > http://security.rr.com/cgi-bin/block-lookup?72.22.18.105 > ... while talking to cdptpa-smtpin02.mail.rr.com.: > <<< 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com > <<< 550 ERROR: Mail Refused - 72.22.18.105 - See > http://security.rr.com/cgi-bin/block-lookup?72.22.18.105 > 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From dinn at blend.twistedpair.ca Fri Apr 25 09:15:52 2008 From: dinn at blend.twistedpair.ca (Michael 'Moose' Dinn) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:15:52 -0300 Subject: [NANOG] nameserver / test point swap Message-ID: <20080425141552.GA11294@blend.twistedpair.ca> I'm looking for someone to swap services with - we need a remote nameserver/test point, preferrably somewhere other than North America, and we can offer the same in return. Ideally we'd just trade small VMWare images (40G disk/512M RAM) but I'm open to other options as well. From bjorn at mork.no Fri Apr 25 09:24:21 2008 From: bjorn at mork.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Mork?=) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:24:21 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 In-Reply-To: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ACF0@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> (Matthew Evans's message of "Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:05:07 -0400") References: <01c001c8a6db$661c79d0$32556d70$@net> <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ACF0@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Message-ID: <87ve26au7e.fsf@obelix.mork.no> Matthew Evans writes: > Road Runner utilizes a volume based spam block from my > understanding. If you send over X amount of email in Y amount of time, > they block you. You need to create a rule that staggers the number of > messages you send to all rr.com domains so as to not trigger the > threshold and become blocked. See here for the limits: > http://security.rr.com/spam.htm#ratelimit So they'll block all the major ISPs smtp relays, but not the infected PCs used to inject spam? Smart. Do their customers really accept this? Bj?rn From crpopovi at nauticom.net Fri Apr 25 09:40:44 2008 From: crpopovi at nauticom.net (Clinton Popovich) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:40:44 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 In-Reply-To: <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ACF0@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> References: <01c001c8a6db$661c79d0$32556d70$@net> <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ACF0@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> Message-ID: <01e401c8a6e2$57f23550$07d69ff0$@net> Honestly I doubt we are blasting Road Runner that hard. When I look thru the log files it really does not look that bad except for on the 19th. So I would have to say this is not how they have chosen to block me. Clinton Popovich Systems Administrator Consolidated Communications, Inc. Formerly Nauticom Internet Services Tel: 724-933-9540 Fax: 724-933-9888 Email: Clinton.Popovich at consolidated.com -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Evans [mailto:mevans at alphatheory.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:05 AM To: Clinton Popovich; nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 Road Runner utilizes a volume based spam block from my understanding. If you send over X amount of email in Y amount of time, they block you. You need to create a rule that staggers the number of messages you send to all rr.com domains so as to not trigger the threshold and become blocked. See here for the limits: http://security.rr.com/spam.htm#ratelimit Here's a link to get unblocked: http://security.rr.com/mail_blocks.htm Good luck. Matthew Evans, MCSA Alpha Theory | "the right decision, every time." 2201 Coronation Blvd., Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28227 www.alphatheory.com ALPHA THEORY QUICK DEMO (click here) -----Original Message----- From: Clinton Popovich [mailto:crpopovi at nauticom.net] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:51 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 Greetings all, I am having a bit of trouble with Road Runner, we have been blocked repeatedly for email that I believe to have been sent out on the 19th. I have about 50,000 customers sitting behind this old mail server currently. I have emailed back in forth with someone from roadrunner and when he sends me back the spam example it is always from the 19th. So far from the spam sent out on that day we have been blocked 5 times. Does anyone have a contact for Road Runner that I might be able to have. Thanks, Clinton Popovich Systems Administrator Consolidated Communications, Inc. Formerly Nauticom Internet Services Tel: 724-933-9540 Fax: 724-933-9888 Email: Clinton.Popovich at consolidated.com Road runner bounce example. > The original message was received at Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:43:41 -0400 (EDT) > from 5.ksyr6.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.174.38] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > (reason: 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to cdptpa-smtpin01.mail.rr.com.: > <<< 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com > <<< 550 ERROR: Mail Refused - 72.22.18.105 - See > http://security.rr.com/cgi-bin/block-lookup?72.22.18.105 > ... while talking to cdptpa-smtpin02.mail.rr.com.: > <<< 550-cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com > <<< 550 ERROR: Mail Refused - 72.22.18.105 - See > http://security.rr.com/cgi-bin/block-lookup?72.22.18.105 > 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From dwcarder at wisc.edu Fri Apr 25 10:04:44 2008 From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:04:44 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> References: <4810D856.6070105@gmail.com> <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> Message-ID: <5F923817-7BB4-4E1C-B9D7-FE1960FA7BB9@wisc.edu> On Apr 25, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Scott E. MacKenzie wrote: > Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks > deployed for > Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? Here's a map showing some of the regional optical networks run by the R&E community. There's a lot more unrepresented here, especially in metro environments. http://paintsquirrel.ucs.indiana.edu/RON/archive/fiber_map_current.pdf Most of this stuff is then connected into NLR, Internet2. > We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... Highly practical, and the latest network planning tools seem to be halfway decent from the 2 vendors we use. Dale From crpopovi at nauticom.net Fri Apr 25 10:20:45 2008 From: crpopovi at nauticom.net (Clinton Popovich) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:20:45 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 In-Reply-To: <87ve26au7e.fsf@obelix.mork.no> References: <01c001c8a6db$661c79d0$32556d70$@net> <6E7EB2F0E1A0634CACFF78A04B6452DB0FCF60ACF0@alpha-dc01.alphatheory.local> <87ve26au7e.fsf@obelix.mork.no> Message-ID: <020001c8a6e7$ef049410$cd0dbc30$@net> This issue has been resolved thanks all! Clinton Popovich Systems Administrator Consolidated Communications, Inc. Formerly Nauticom Internet Services Tel: 724-933-9540 Fax: 724-933-9888 Email: Clinton.Popovich at consolidated.com -----Original Message----- From: Bj?rn Mork [mailto:bjorn at mork.no] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:24 AM To: Matthew Evans Cc: Clinton Popovich; nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [NANOG] Block: Road Runner Internal IP blacklist 72.22.18.105 Matthew Evans writes: > Road Runner utilizes a volume based spam block from my > understanding. If you send over X amount of email in Y amount of time, > they block you. You need to create a rule that staggers the number of > messages you send to all rr.com domains so as to not trigger the > threshold and become blocked. See here for the limits: > http://security.rr.com/spam.htm#ratelimit So they'll block all the major ISPs smtp relays, but not the infected PCs used to inject spam? Smart. Do their customers really accept this? Bj?rn From john at internetassociatesllc.com Fri Apr 25 12:26:07 2008 From: john at internetassociatesllc.com (John Lee) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:26:07 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM More Details Message-ID: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10762@MEMEXG1.HOST.local> Scott, Do you want CWDM - Course Wave Division Multiplexing - > 100 nm optical spacing 1 - 10 x 2.5 - 10 Gbps lambdas DWDM - Dense Wave Division Multiplexing - = 50 nm optical spacing 20 - 40 x 2.5 - 10 Gbps UDWDM - Ultra Dense Wave Division Multiplexing - < 50 nm optical spacing 40 - 80 x 2.5 - 10 Gbps What size area do you want CAN - Campus Area Network 1 - 5 Miles Short Optics, No amplifiers MAN - Metro Area Network 10 - 40 Miles Medium Optics, No amplifiers WAN - Wide Area Network 150 Miles between In Line Amplifiers (ILA) Long haul optics, EDFA or Ramiun Amps ULHWAN - Ultra Long Haul 600 - 800 Miles between ILA, ULH optics, Ramiun Amps What type of fiber do you want to use? SMF, Zero dispersion, phase shifted, etc.. This one you usually cannot control fiber since it depends on who you lease or buy the fiber from. Running the fiber cost the money. There are now a large number of regional fiber providers with Level (3) having the "most available" dark or lite fiber nationally in the US. Alcaltel/Lucent, ADVA, Ciena, Cisco and the Chinese are normal list of optical equipment providers and Siemens, Ericson and others. Subscribe to Lightwave (at no charge) and look at the back issues for networks. Show up at Supercom or OFC or what is replacing them and get the latest on ROADM, full channel tunable lasers and maintenance costs. What size of network do you want to grow to before replacing the optical link equipment including ILAs? Most any org can cost justify a CWDM / CAN since you can add one fiber pair at a time and one lambda per fiber pair. DWDM gear is much more expensive and is aimed at 20 to 40 lambdas per fiber for service providers while UDWDM and ULHWAN are aimed at trans oceanic links and are very very expensive. John (ISDN) Lee ________________________________________ From: Scott E. MacKenzie [smackenzie at qf.org.qa] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM To: NANOG Subject: [NANOG] DWDM Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... Scott _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From alex at pilosoft.com Fri Apr 25 12:37:50 2008 From: alex at pilosoft.com (Alex Pilosov) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [NANOG] DWDM More Details In-Reply-To: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10762@MEMEXG1.HOST.local> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: > Subscribe to Lightwave (at no charge) and look at the back issues for networks. Show up at Supercom or OFC or what is replacing them and get the latest on ROADM, full channel tunable lasers and maintenance costs. > > What size of network do you want to grow to before replacing the optical link equipment including ILAs? > > Most any org can cost justify a CWDM / CAN since you can add one fiber pair at a time and one lambda per fiber pair. > > DWDM gear is much more expensive and is aimed at 20 to 40 lambdas per > fiber for service providers while UDWDM and ULHWAN are aimed at trans > oceanic links and are very very expensive. DWDM gear is not expensive. Passive muxes cost little. Active transceivers cost money but not very expensive at all. Check out these two presentations (by yours truly et al): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/lightning-talks/4-pilosov.pdf http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/presenter-pdfs/pilosov.pdf -alex From john at internetassociatesllc.com Fri Apr 25 12:55:05 2008 From: john at internetassociatesllc.com (John Lee) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:55:05 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM More Details In-Reply-To: References: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10762@MEMEXG1.HOST.local>, Message-ID: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10763@MEMEXG1.HOST.local> alex, In your talk, I agree that the CAN with your CWDM is not that expensive but you also mention that the tighter DWDM with long haul optics is expensive ie "Everybody knows how to do (active) xWDM by giving a lot of money to (insert vendor of choice]:" When you talk about the tighter itu spacing for "real" DWDM and the lasers with fiber that can handle the power, jitter, chromatic dispersion et al. the optics you mention will not handle that. We have all duct taped optical systems on campus for the lab "and across the state of Georgia" see the Peach Net map. What is the largest number of lambdas you have actually run on a single fiber with your duct tape system and how bad was the optical cross talk? john ________________________________________ From: Alex Pilosov [alex at pilosoft.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 1:37 PM To: John Lee Cc: Scott E. MacKenzie; NANOG Subject: Re: [NANOG] DWDM More Details On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: > Subscribe to Lightwave (at no charge) and look at the back issues for networks. Show up at Supercom or OFC or what is replacing them and get the latest on ROADM, full channel tunable lasers and maintenance costs. > > What size of network do you want to grow to before replacing the optical link equipment including ILAs? > > Most any org can cost justify a CWDM / CAN since you can add one fiber pair at a time and one lambda per fiber pair. > > DWDM gear is much more expensive and is aimed at 20 to 40 lambdas per > fiber for service providers while UDWDM and ULHWAN are aimed at trans > oceanic links and are very very expensive. DWDM gear is not expensive. Passive muxes cost little. Active transceivers cost money but not very expensive at all. Check out these two presentations (by yours truly et al): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/lightning-talks/4-pilosov.pdf http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/presenter-pdfs/pilosov.pdf -alex From alex at pilosoft.com Fri Apr 25 12:58:09 2008 From: alex at pilosoft.com (Alex Pilosov) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [NANOG] DWDM More Details In-Reply-To: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10763@MEMEXG1.HOST.local> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: > In your talk, I agree that the CAN with your CWDM is not that expensive > but you also mention that the tighter DWDM with long haul optics is > expensive ie "Everybody knows how to do (active) xWDM by giving a lot of > money to (insert vendor of choice]:" > > When you talk about the tighter itu spacing for "real" DWDM and the > lasers with fiber that can handle the power, jitter, chromatic > dispersion et al. the optics you mention will not handle that. > > We have all duct taped optical systems on campus for the lab "and across > the state of Georgia" see the Peach Net map. > > What is the largest number of lambdas you have actually run on a single > fiber with your duct tape system and how bad was the optical cross talk? I'd be curious to ask reverse question, did anyone *have* real problems deploying duct tape systems, or power jitter chromatic dispersion is vendor mumbo jumbo designed to make you buy their gear? (within the distance limits spec'd, 80km dwdm etc) -alex From cscora at apnic.net Fri Apr 25 13:06:57 2008 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:06:57 +1000 (EST) Subject: [NANOG] Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <200804251806.m3PI6vTF001610@thyme.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 26 Apr, 2008 Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 254062 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 126996 Deaggregation factor: 2.00 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 123674 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 28040 Prefixes per ASN: 9.06 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 24422 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11383 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3618 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 81 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 Max AS path length visible: 19 Max AS path prepend of ASN (39375) 13 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 25254 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1883 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 46 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 10 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 794 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1864785952 Equivalent to 111 /8s, 38 /16s and 96 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 50.3 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 61.8 Percentage of available address space allocated: 81.4 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 71.6 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 121945 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 42902 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 13600 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.15 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 55266 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 23976 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1927 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 28.68 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 550 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 353 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 346601824 Equivalent to 20 /8s, 168 /16s and 185 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 79.5 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079 APNIC Address Blocks 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 107608 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 59199 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.82 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 86454 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 34200 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 11763 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.35 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 4592 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1045 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.4 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 358940416 Equivalent to 21 /8s, 100 /16s and 255 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 73.8 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 173/8, 174/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 54765 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 33522 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.63 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 49997 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 33450 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 11258 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 4.44 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5885 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1723 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 355108864 Equivalent to 21 /8s, 42 /16s and 136 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 81.4 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104 - 48127 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 19746 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4938 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.00 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 18144 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 9833 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 894 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.30 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 277 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 155 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 50827008 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 7 /16s and 143 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 50.5 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 3786 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 1198 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.16 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 4141 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1840 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 241 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.18 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 79 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 46 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 15 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 11360256 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 173 /16s and 88 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 33.9 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4755 1634 387 89 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 9498 1162 550 61 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 9583 1161 129 195 Sify Limited 17488 1059 70 77 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 4134 856 12647 320 CHINANET-BACKBONE 4766 849 6006 345 Korea Telecom (KIX) 18101 680 149 54 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 9829 598 450 12 BSNL National Internet Backbo 1221 545 1919 419 Telstra Pty Ltd 4808 519 837 132 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4323 1423 1029 375 Time Warner Telecom 7018 1407 5977 1003 AT&T WorldNet Services 2386 1398 642 864 AT&T Data Communications Serv 11492 1214 146 37 Cable One 7011 1097 319 624 Citizens Utilities 18566 1043 296 10 Covad Communications 1785 1011 511 106 AppliedTheory Corporation 6197 988 598 508 BellSouth Network Solutions, 174 969 6835 802 Cogent Communications 22773 934 2394 62 Cox Communications, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3292 408 1787 368 TDC Tele Danmark 9198 381 74 9 Kazakhtelecom Data Network Ad 8452 356 188 7 TEDATA 3301 338 1459 307 TeliaNet Sweden 3320 323 7044 266 Deutsche Telekom AG 8866 297 78 24 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 5462 292 666 26 Telewest Broadband 8551 282 269 37 Bezeq International 3215 278 2679 89 France Telecom Transpac 6746 267 128 244 Dynamic Network Technologies, Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 1189 2432 222 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 11830 573 299 9 Instituto Costarricense de El 22047 562 270 14 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 7303 455 222 60 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 16814 426 27 10 NSS, S.A. 6471 414 85 46 ENTEL CHILE S.A. 11172 414 117 69 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 10620 386 98 77 TVCABLE BOGOTA 14117 384 25 15 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 20299 308 36 31 NEWCOM AMERICAS Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 464 61 27 LINKdotNET AS number 3741 289 853 223 The Internet Solution 20858 217 34 3 EgyNet 2018 178 190 86 Tertiary Education Network 5713 150 558 120 Telkom SA Ltd 6713 143 135 11 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 33783 134 10 12 EEPAD TISP TELECOM & INTERNET 5536 121 8 16 Internet Egypt Network 29571 116 13 8 Ci Telecom Autonomous system 33776 99 6 7 Starcomms Nigeria Limited Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 2768 3020 115 bellsouth.net, inc. 23577 1638 34 700 Korea Telecom (ATM-MPLS) 4755 1634 387 89 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 4323 1423 1029 375 Time Warner Telecom 7018 1407 5977 1003 AT&T WorldNet Services 2386 1398 642 864 AT&T Data Communications Serv 11492 1214 146 37 Cable One 8151 1189 2432 222 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 9498 1162 550 61 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 9583 1161 129 195 Sify Limited Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4755 1634 1545 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 11492 1214 1177 Cable One 9498 1162 1101 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 4323 1423 1048 Time Warner Telecom 18566 1043 1033 Covad Communications 17488 1059 982 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 8151 1189 967 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 9583 1161 966 Sify Limited 17676 1016 951 Softbank BB Corp. 23577 1638 938 Korea Telecom (ATM-MPLS) Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 14780 UNALLOCATED 4.79.181.0/24 10310 Yahoo! 12180 UNALLOCATED 4.79.248.0/24 1239 Sprint 12180 UNALLOCATED 8.10.16.0/24 3549 Global Crossing 12180 UNALLOCATED 8.10.58.0/23 3549 Global Crossing 14779 UNALLOCATED 8.12.144.0/24 10310 Yahoo! 16927 UNALLOCATED 12.0.252.0/23 701 UUNET Technologies, 22492 UNALLOCATED 12.2.46.0/24 1239 Sprint 15132 UNALLOCATED 12.9.150.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 32567 UNALLOCATED 12.14.170.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 13632 UNALLOCATED 12.20.55.0/24 6517 Yipes Communications Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 24.51.159.0/24 7843 Adelphia Corp. 24.54.224.0/19 20001 HoldCo LLC - Road Runner 24.75.160.0/19 7843 Adelphia Corp. 24.75.192.0/18 7843 Adelphia Corp. 24.142.40.0/21 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 24.142.160.0/19 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.0.0/17 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.128.0/18 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 62.61.220.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 63.140.213.0/24 22555 Universal Talkware Corporatio Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:19 /9:9 /10:16 /11:42 /12:140 /13:280 /14:506 /15:999 /16:9868 /17:4359 /18:7294 /19:15348 /20:17778 /21:17144 /22:21534 /23:22624 /24:133802 /25:772 /26:919 /27:495 /28:96 /29:9 /30:1 /31:0 /32:8 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 11492 1200 1214 Cable One 2386 1096 1398 AT&T Data Communications Serv 18566 1024 1043 Covad Communications 9583 999 1161 Sify Limited 7011 980 1097 Citizens Utilities 4755 972 1634 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 6478 924 925 AT&T Worldnet Services 17488 871 1059 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 6389 863 2768 bellsouth.net, inc. 9498 835 1162 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data/sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:9 8:106 12:2015 13:1 15:20 16:3 17:6 18:13 20:35 24:1062 25:1 32:61 33:4 38:415 40:94 41:657 44:2 47:8 52:3 55:3 56:3 57:22 58:512 59:455 60:440 61:982 62:1085 63:1959 64:3379 65:2401 66:3624 67:1144 68:672 69:2156 70:602 71:126 72:1677 73:6 74:952 75:226 76:289 77:646 78:609 79:146 80:898 81:853 82:605 83:373 84:554 85:1004 86:405 87:645 88:344 89:1273 90:11 91:1205 92:285 93:329 96:25 97:14 98:142 99:3 116:620 117:303 118:125 119:403 120:13 121:526 122:744 123:316 124:839 125:1115 128:320 129:198 130:128 131:401 132:65 133:9 134:179 135:32 136:222 137:113 138:150 139:60 140:490 141:96 142:437 143:284 144:346 145:50 146:360 147:142 148:502 149:180 150:128 151:175 152:142 153:127 154:10 155:265 156:208 157:263 158:168 159:224 160:254 161:111 162:210 163:196 164:577 165:444 166:298 167:316 168:611 169:127 170:427 171:28 172:2 189:164 190:1808 192:5770 193:4099 194:3260 195:2416 196:1061 198:3746 199:3235 200:5622 201:1406 202:7558 203:7804 204:4003 205:2089 206:2391 207:2754 208:3271 209:3469 210:2537 211:1046 212:1362 213:1647 214:447 215:50 216:4325 217:1220 218:351 219:407 220:1076 221:424 222:306 End of report From dwcarder at wisc.edu Fri Apr 25 13:19:04 2008 From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:19:04 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM More Details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Alex Pilosov wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: > > I'd be curious to ask reverse question, did anyone *have* real > problems > deploying duct tape systems, or power jitter chromatic dispersion is > vendor mumbo jumbo designed to make you buy their gear? > (within the distance limits spec'd, 80km dwdm etc) What I think you are referring to is known as the Gordon-Haus effect. This is related to the length of a strand to the 3rd power, so I would guess for modern optics / filters, it is a non-issue for 80k. Dale From john at internetassociatesllc.com Fri Apr 25 13:28:47 2008 From: john at internetassociatesllc.com (John Lee) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:28:47 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM More Details In-Reply-To: References: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10763@MEMEXG1.HOST.local>, Message-ID: <53A6C7E936ED8544B1A2BC990D254F94ECB10764@MEMEXG1.HOST.local> Yes, but in very specific cases such as older ZD, NZD fiber and SMF with 20 or more lambdas (at 2.5 Gbps or less) and with Ultra long haul and ultra DWDM 600 - 800 miles, 25 nm spacing and fiber with too high a water vapor content and/or higher impurities in the fiber. If you have less than optimum fiber you need the additional optics and electronics to make it perform. So my question is the same as the underliying one in your presentation which for Scott is what are you trying to do and there are several ways to reduce the cost or if you need the super neat, highest speed, longest run stuff you will pay for it. Side note, I liked your two presentations. john ________________________________________ From: Alex Pilosov [alex at pilosoft.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 1:58 PM To: John Lee Cc: Scott E. MacKenzie; NANOG Subject: RE: [NANOG] DWDM More Details On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: > In your talk, I agree that the CAN with your CWDM is not that expensive > but you also mention that the tighter DWDM with long haul optics is > expensive ie "Everybody knows how to do (active) xWDM by giving a lot of > money to (insert vendor of choice]:" > > When you talk about the tighter itu spacing for "real" DWDM and the > lasers with fiber that can handle the power, jitter, chromatic > dispersion et al. the optics you mention will not handle that. > > We have all duct taped optical systems on campus for the lab "and across > the state of Georgia" see the Peach Net map. > > What is the largest number of lambdas you have actually run on a single > fiber with your duct tape system and how bad was the optical cross talk? I'd be curious to ask reverse question, did anyone *have* real problems deploying duct tape systems, or power jitter chromatic dispersion is vendor mumbo jumbo designed to make you buy their gear? (within the distance limits spec'd, 80km dwdm etc) -alex From jabley at ca.afilias.info Fri Apr 25 14:59:29 2008 From: jabley at ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:59:29 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [Nanog] Routing Policy Information In-Reply-To: <9A399E99-D15B-4D7E-AC22-9379E8D58842@grrrrreg.net> References: <9A399E99-D15B-4D7E-AC22-9379E8D58842@grrrrreg.net> Message-ID: On 25 Apr 2008, at 06:34, Greg VILLAIN wrote: > On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Fouant, Stefan wrote: > >> Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere >> which >> outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default >> local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED, >> allowed >> prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each >> ISP one was a customer of to ascertain this information. > > I'm a bit late on that, but I'd tend to think this is commonly done on > their RIR aut-num object. In the RIPE region it might be reasonable to use the word "commonly". I think it's fair to say that elsewhere a more correct phrase might be "almost never". Joe From giesen at snickers.org Fri Apr 25 15:10:35 2008 From: giesen at snickers.org (Gary T. Giesen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:10:35 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast Routing Issues Message-ID: <9a9d0c6a0804251310q6179fd7cy79f3eaf68f8c76f0@mail.gmail.com> Anyone from Comcast (or anyone know anyone from Comcast) that can contact me regarding a routing issue on their network? I'm seeing some weird routing between a customer of mine and a /32 on our network. Traceroutes from customer site to two adjacent /32's on our network Working /32 1 * * * 2 68.85.179.153 8 msec 8 msec 12 msec 3 68.85.176.169 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec 4 68.87.231.113 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 5 68.86.90.170 24 msec 24 msec 28 msec 6 68.86.90.169 32 msec 36 msec 32 msec 7 68.86.85.26 40 msec 48 msec 40 msec 8 68.86.85.70 56 msec 56 msec 56 msec 9 62.156.128.117 56 msec 64 msec 56 msec 10 62.154.5.214 124 msec 136 msec 76 msec ... Broken /32 1 * * * 2 68.85.179.153 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 3 68.85.176.169 8 msec 8 msec 12 msec 4 68.87.230.234 16 msec 16 msec 24 msec 5 68.86.90.54 12 msec 16 msec 16 msec 6 68.86.90.53 40 msec 44 msec 36 msec 7 68.86.85.101 68 msec 68 msec 56 msec 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * ... Regards, GG From giesen at snickers.org Fri Apr 25 15:14:24 2008 From: giesen at snickers.org (Gary T. Giesen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:14:24 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast Routing Issues In-Reply-To: <9a9d0c6a0804251310q6179fd7cy79f3eaf68f8c76f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a9d0c6a0804251310q6179fd7cy79f3eaf68f8c76f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9a9d0c6a0804251314q63904f15qe4ebd3e882fcf0ce@mail.gmail.com> Note that these addresses are advertised aggregated as a /19 from us to our peers. GG On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: > Anyone from Comcast (or anyone know anyone from Comcast) that can > contact me regarding a routing issue on their network? I'm seeing some > weird routing between a customer of mine and a /32 on our network. > > Traceroutes from customer site to two adjacent /32's on our network > > > Working /32 > > 1 * * * > 2 68.85.179.153 8 msec 8 msec 12 msec > 3 68.85.176.169 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec > 4 68.87.231.113 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec > 5 68.86.90.170 24 msec 24 msec 28 msec > 6 68.86.90.169 32 msec 36 msec 32 msec > 7 68.86.85.26 40 msec 48 msec 40 msec > 8 68.86.85.70 56 msec 56 msec 56 msec > 9 62.156.128.117 56 msec 64 msec 56 msec > 10 62.154.5.214 124 msec 136 msec 76 msec > ... > > > Broken /32 > > 1 * * * > 2 68.85.179.153 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec > 3 68.85.176.169 8 msec 8 msec 12 msec > 4 68.87.230.234 16 msec 16 msec 24 msec > 5 68.86.90.54 12 msec 16 msec 16 msec > 6 68.86.90.53 40 msec 44 msec 36 msec > 7 68.86.85.101 68 msec 68 msec 56 msec > 8 * * * > 9 * * * > 10 * * * > ... > > Regards, > > GG > From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 25 15:45:00 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:45:00 +0900 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <5F923817-7BB4-4E1C-B9D7-FE1960FA7BB9@wisc.edu> References: <4810D856.6070105@gmail.com> <11DD5081EA929E419BDDB7029157F7D9070AFE91@EXCH.qf.org.qa> <5F923817-7BB4-4E1C-B9D7-FE1960FA7BB9@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <481242CC.3080907@psg.com> > Here's a map showing some of the regional optical networks > run by the R&E community. There's a lot more unrepresented ^ american > here, especially in metro environments. europe is similar. some of asia is similar. scott might better have asked what r&e communities were not dwdm. randy From mike at reachme.com Fri Apr 25 19:16:21 2008 From: mike at reachme.com (Mike Fedyk) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:16:21 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Thank you SBC for routing around Cogent Message-ID: <006601c8a732$c18918d0$cb998647@ws20031> Now cogent isn't between my VoIP and my DSL: 1. adsl-63-194-NNN-NNN.dsl.lsan03.p 0.0% 82 57.4 22.7 8.3 58.3 16.3 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.ne 1.2% 82 21.5 19.4 8.2 133.7 16.3 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 82 41.1 55.0 8.2 242.9 63.7 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 82 80.1 47.6 9.6 290.0 57.2 5. gar6.la2ca.ip.att.net 0.0% 82 66.7 31.0 9.5 215.5 35.1 6. 12.127.3.194 0.0% 82 33.6 22.0 10.7 55.3 11.9 7. gar2.lsrca.ip.att.net 0.0% 82 31.3 25.6 9.4 202.1 30.7 8. ??? 9. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paete 0.0% 82 16.0 31.1 15.5 207.6 26.6 10. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec. 0.0% 82 109.7 35.8 15.3 202.7 35.4 11. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec. 0.0% 82 15.0 30.4 14.6 203.6 26.0 From marc at let.de Sat Apr 26 12:39:28 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:39:28 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? Message-ID: hello i have a question : " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ? Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ? just my 2 cents marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :marc at kgraff.net blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org From adrian at creative.net.au Sat Apr 26 12:57:04 2008 From: adrian at creative.net.au (Adrian Chadd) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:57:04 +0800 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080426175704.GB24668@skywalker.creative.net.au> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008, Marc Manthey wrote: > hello > > i have a question : > > " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet > content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ? > > Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ? Some people make more money shipping more bits. They may not have any motivation or desire to decrease traffic. Adrian From marc at let.de Sat Apr 26 13:03:54 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:03:54 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <20080426175704.GB24668@skywalker.creative.net.au> References: <20080426175704.GB24668@skywalker.creative.net.au> Message-ID: <8D2FE606-97F3-49C4-A7BB-3273B233AF72@let.de> >> hello >> >> i have a question : >> >> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet >> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet >> traffic ? >> >> Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ? > > Some people make more money shipping more bits. They may not have > any motivation or desire to decrease traffic. hello adrian, yes i know but i would like to know if there is some material / links, case studys or papers / statistics around to visualise it, for a presentation that i am planning todo. greetings Marc From tony at lava.net Sat Apr 26 13:42:32 2008 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:42:32 -1000 (HST) Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote: > " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet > content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ? On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' and suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of overall internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving most live content to multicast on the Internet would have little overall effect. However, for some live content where the audience is either very large or concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast certainly has significant advantages in reducing traffic on the networks closest to the source or where the viewer concentration is high (particularly where the viewer numbers infrequently spikes significantly higher than the average). But network providers make their money in part by selling bandwidth. The folks who would need to push for multicast are the live/perishable content providers as they're the ones who'd benefit the most. But if bandwidth is cheap they're not really gonna care. > Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ? It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network efficiency and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has nothing to do with it. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From johnl at iecc.com Sat Apr 26 13:54:18 2008 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 26 Apr 2008 18:54:18 -0000 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080426185418.5355.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' and >suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of overall >internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving most live >content to multicast on the Internet would have little overall >effect. I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in real time, but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to multicast feeds to local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't come all the way across the net. R's, John From marc at let.de Sat Apr 26 14:03:59 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:03:59 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 26.04.2008 um 20:42 schrieb Antonio Querubin: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote: > >> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet >> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet >> traffic ? > > On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' > and suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of > overall internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving > most live content to multicast on the Internet would have little > overall effect. right, i am aware of that and i was ment as an hypothetically rant ;) > However, for some live content where the audience is either very > large or concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast > certainly has significant advantages in reducing traffic on the > networks closest to the source or where the viewer concentration is > high (particularly where the viewer numbers infrequently spikes > significantly higher than the average). i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving 10.000 unicast streams and 10.000 multicast streams would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ? > But network providers make their money in part by selling > bandwidth. The folks who would need to push for multicast are the > live/perishable content providers as they're the ones who'd benefit > the most. But if bandwidth is cheap they're not really gonna care. well , cheap is relative , i bet its cheap where google hosts the NOCs , but its not cheap in brasil , argentinia or indonesia. >> Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ? > > It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network > efficiency and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has > nothing to do with it. thanks for your opinion. Marc > Antonio Querubin > whois: AQ7-ARIN From jay at west.net Sat Apr 26 14:12:54 2008 From: jay at west.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:12:54 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <20080426185418.5355.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080426185418.5355.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <48137EB6.6070802@west.net> John Levine wrote: > I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in real time, > but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to multicast feeds to > local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't come all > the way across the net. I think the good folks at Akamai may have already thought of this. :-) -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From marc at let.de Sat Apr 26 14:21:15 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:21:15 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <48137EB6.6070802@west.net> References: <20080426185418.5355.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48137EB6.6070802@west.net> Message-ID: <10EEC006-394E-4389-B749-97B9807711B6@let.de> Am 26.04.2008 um 21:12 schrieb Jay Hennigan: > John Levine wrote: > >> I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in real time, >> but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to multicast feeds >> to >> local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't come all >> the way across the net. > > I think the good folks at Akamai may have already thought of this. :-) teh http://research.microsoft.com/~ratul/akamai.html http://www.akamai.com/html/about/management_dl.html multicast ? i have another theory , but i dont talk about it ;) BUT .....someone mentioned akamai had 13.000 servers, imagine they just need 100 would this hurt ? ;) cheers Marc From repstein at chello.at Sat Apr 26 14:33:23 2008 From: repstein at chello.at (Randy Epstein) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:33:23 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] AS3300-BT Infonet sends full table to AS1239-Sprint Message-ID: <025001c8a7d4$67bf8850$3983d6a6@D88CFA77634F40F> All, At ~19:00 UTC today, AS3300-BT/Infonet announced their full routing table to AS1239-Sprint, and Sprint accepted it and re-announced it to all of their peers and transit customers. Example: *> 3.0.0.0 144.228.191.169 100 0 1239 3300 21484 6661 3257 701 703 80 i As a peer of AS3300, our max-prefix filters knocked down the session immediately at multiple peering points in the US and Europe. After ~20 minutes, we started noticing AS3300 announcements via some of our other peers, that we wouldn't normally see. Anyone from AS3300 on the list to explain? Regards, Randy Epstein From todd-nanog at renesys.com Sat Apr 26 14:50:22 2008 From: todd-nanog at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:50:22 +0000 Subject: [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ... Message-ID: <20080426195022.GX6212@renesys.com> y'all, just to remind everyone: the discounted rate of registration for NANOG43 in Brooklyn expires Tuesday, April 30. after April 30, rates go up from $450 to $525. so if you want to save $75, please register now. https://nanog.merit.edu/registration/ almost more importantly, cheap hotel rates are expiring may 14, but they are only available on a first come basis. they're running out. so if you plan to attend the event, register for the hotel now: http://nanog.org/mtg-0806/hotel.html the agenda is basically final as well: http://nanog.org/mtg-0806/agenda.html the program committee will be accepting lightning talks for late-breaking or shorter presentations, but those will be accepted closer to the event (or at the event itself). see you in brooklyn. t. (chair of the program committee) -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce From hannigan at gmail.com Sat Apr 26 20:54:20 2008 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:54:20 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ... In-Reply-To: <20080426195022.GX6212@renesys.com> References: <20080426195022.GX6212@renesys.com> Message-ID: <2d106eb50804261854i6293499ep3977c76689317909@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: > y'all, > > just to remind everyone: ..that we never heard back from you as to why there is no IPV6 content in the program in Brooklyn? :-) Best, Martin From joelja at bogus.com Sat Apr 26 21:14:22 2008 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:14:22 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ... In-Reply-To: <2d106eb50804261854i6293499ep3977c76689317909@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080426195022.GX6212@renesys.com> <2d106eb50804261854i6293499ep3977c76689317909@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4813E17E.4060702@bogus.com> Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: >> y'all, >> >> just to remind everyone: > > ..that we never heard back from you as to why there is no IPV6 content > in the program in Brooklyn? :-) Not sure how you get ipv6 on your cable plant without docsis 3.0 cpe and new cmts line cards... or what arin and iana would be talking about apart from v4 exhaustion as well as v6 adoption... but I would also expect to that a refractory period for any particular thematic emphasis is order to not produce participant burnout. Looks like theme this time is prefix filtering. > Best, > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From rdobbins at cisco.com Sat Apr 26 22:37:38 2008 From: rdobbins at cisco.com (Roland Dobbins) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:37:38 +0700 Subject: [NANOG] OT: Planetary-Scale Views on a Large Instant-Messaging Network. Message-ID: <5B46C258-F864-4A46-856C-0113AEBEFB27@cisco.com> Interesting Microsoft Research piece on macro-scale user behaviors: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // +66.83.266.6344 mobile History is a great teacher, but it also lies with impunity. -- John Robb From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Apr 27 12:21:05 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:21:05 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <48137EB6.6070802@west.net> References: <20080426185418.5355.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48137EB6.6070802@west.net> Message-ID: > > I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in > real time, > > but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to > multicast feeds to > > local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't > come all > > the way across the net. > > I think the good folks at Akamai may have already thought of this. :-) Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network functionality. If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then you are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right protocols and who peer using those protocols. P2P is a lot like CDN because it does not rely on any specific ISP implementation, but as a result of being 100% free of the ISP, P2P also lacks the knowledge of the network topology that it needs to be efficient. Of course, a content provider could leverage P2P by predelivering its content to strategically located sites in the network, just like they do with a CDN. IP multicast and P2MP have routing protocols which tell them where to send content. CDN's are either set up manually or use their own proprietary methods to figure out where to send content. P2P currently doesn't care about topology because it views the net as an amorphous cloud. NNTP, the historical firehose protocol, just floods it out to everyone who hasn't seen it yet but actually, the consumers of an NNTP feed have been set up statically in advance. And this static setup does include knowledge of ISP's network topology, and knowledge of the ISP's economic realities. I'd like to see a P2P protocol that sets up paths dynamically, but allows for inputs as varied as those old NNTP setups. There was also a time when LAN's had some form of economic reality configured in, i.e. some users were only allowed to log into the LAN during certain time periods on certain days. Is there any ISP that wouldn't want some way to signal P2P clients how to use spare bandwidth without ruining the network for other paying customers? --Michael Dillon From joelja at bogus.com Sun Apr 27 13:27:47 2008 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:27:47 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: <20080426185418.5355.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48137EB6.6070802@west.net> Message-ID: <4814C5A3.3090903@bogus.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > NNTP, the historical firehose protocol, just floods it out > to everyone who hasn't seen it yet but actually, the consumers of > an NNTP feed have been set up statically in advance. And this static > setup does include knowledge of ISP's network topology, and knowledge > of the ISP's economic realities. I'd like to see a P2P protocol that > sets up paths dynamically, but allows for inputs as varied as those > old NNTP setups. There was also a time when LAN's had some form of > economic reality configured in, i.e. some users were only allowed > to log into the LAN during certain time periods on certain days. > Is there any ISP that wouldn't want some way to signal P2P clients > how to use spare bandwidth without ruining the network for other > paying customers? I think it's safe to assume that isps are steering p2p traffic for the purposes of adjusting their ratios on peering and transit links... while it lacks the intentionality of playing with the usenet spam/warez/porn firehose a little TE to shift it from one exit to another when you have lots of choices is presumably a useful knob to have. Layer violations to tell applications that they should care about some peers in their overlay network vs others seems like something with a lot of potential uninteded consequences. > --Michael Dillon > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From tony at lava.net Sun Apr 27 16:35:10 2008 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:35:10 -1000 (HST) Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote: > i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving > > 10.000 unicast streams and > 10.000 multicast streams > > would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you > need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ? For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers. You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than something that would have to handle only a single multicast stream. But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either. Even the destination networks would have to consider implementing IGMP and/or MLD snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum benefit from multicast. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From marc at let.de Sun Apr 27 16:50:09 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:50:09 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> >> i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving >> >> 10.000 unicast streams and >> 10.000 multicast streams >> >> would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you >> need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ? hello all , >> > For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers. thanks for the partizipation on this topic , i was "theoreticly " speaking and this was actually what i wanted to hear ;) > > You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than > something that would have to handle only a single multicast stream. > But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either. > Even the destination networks would have to consider implementing > IGMP and/or MLD snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum > benefit from multicast. i was reading some papers about multicast activity on 9/11 and it was interesting to read that it just worked even when most of the "big player " sites went offline, so this gives me another approach for emergency scenarios. > Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not > have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network > functionality. > If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then > you > are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right > protocols > and who peer using those protocols. so this is similar to a "wallet garden " and not what we really want , but i was clear about that this is actually the only idea to implement a "new" technologie into an existing infrastructure. regards and sorry for beeing a bit offtopic Marc > Antonio Querubin > whois: AQ7-ARIN From joelja at bogus.com Sun Apr 27 17:44:48 2008 From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:44:48 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> References: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> Message-ID: <481501E0.3020104@bogus.com> Marc Manthey wrote: >>> i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving >>> >>> 10.000 unicast streams and >>> 10.000 multicast streams >>> >>> would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you >>> need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ? > > > hello all , > >> For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers. > > thanks for the partizipation on this topic , i was "theoreticly " > speaking and this was actually what i wanted to hear ;) Your delivery needs to be sized against demand. 12 years ago when I started playing around with streaming on a university campus boxes like the following were science fiction: http://www.sun.com/servers/networking/streamingsystem/specs.xml#anchor4 As for that matter were n x 10Gb/s ethernet trunks. To make this scale in either dimension, audience or bandwidth, the interests of the service providers and the content creators need to be aligned. Traditionally this has been something of a challenge for multicast deployments. Not that it hasn't happened but it's not an automatic win either. > >> You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than >> something that would have to handle only a single multicast stream. >> But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either. >> Even the destination networks would have to consider implementing >> IGMP and/or MLD snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum >> benefit from multicast. > > i was reading some papers about multicast activity on 9/11 and it was > interesting to read that it just worked even when most > of the "big player " sites went offline, so this gives me another > approach for emergency scenarios. The big player new sites were not take offline due to network capacity issues but rather because their dynamic content delivery platforms couldn't cope with the flash crowds... Once they got rid of the dynamically generated content (per viewer page rendering, advertising) they were back. > > > > > >> Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not >> have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network >> functionality. >> If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then >> you >> are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right >> protocols >> and who peer using those protocols. > > so this is similar to a "wallet garden " and not what we really want , > but i was clear about that this is actually the only idea to implement > a "new" technologie into an existing infrastructure. A maturing internet platform my be quite successful at resisting attempts to change it. It's entirely possible for example that evolving the mbone would have been more successful than "going native". The mbone was in many respects a proto p2p overlay just as ip was a overlay on the circuit-switched pstn. That's all behind us however, and the approach that we should drop all the unicast streaming or p2p in favor of multicast transport because it's greener or lighter weight is just so much tilting at windmills, something I've done altogether to much of. Use the tool where it makes sense and can be delivered in a timely fashion. > > regards and sorry for beeing a bit offtopic > > Marc > > > >> Antonio Querubin >> whois: AQ7-ARIN > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From dlc at lampinc.com Mon Apr 28 08:01:52 2008 From: dlc at lampinc.com (Dale Carstensen) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:01:52 -0600 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <481501E0.3020104@bogus.com> References: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> <481501E0.3020104@bogus.com> Message-ID: <20080428130142.4F4FB38D602@lampinc.com> I became aware of something called espn360 last fall. I just did a google search so I could provide a URL, but one of the top search responses was a Aug 9, 2007 posting saying "ESPN360 Dies an Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality ..." I don't think it's dead, though, and maybe if you don't know about it, you can do your own google search. I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple customers viewing the same stream. Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator community? Mr. Dale From ct at datagram.com Mon Apr 28 11:01:19 2008 From: ct at datagram.com (Thurber) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:01:19 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 Message-ID: Can anybody shed some light on Internap's PNET AS22212? Specifaly how it relates to their PNAP architecture? Is Internap now doing peering? I was under the impression that their entire business model was based around isolated PNAPs and being a backboneless provider. Attempts at getting an explanation from Internap have been fruitless. CT From repstein at chello.at Mon Apr 28 11:13:53 2008 From: repstein at chello.at (Randy Epstein) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:13:53 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01d201c8a94a$dbe3c2b0$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> Thurber, PNET (AS22212) is looked upon by InterNAP's PNAPs (its various ASes) as just another transit provider in the mix. So yes, InterNAP technically peers (under AS22212), but there is no guarantee its various PNAPs would choose that path, depending upon a number of factors. (Disclaimer: This is what I've gathered from public information, not from information obtained under non-disclosure.) Regards, Randy -----Original Message----- From: Thurber [mailto:ct at datagram.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:01 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 Can anybody shed some light on Internap's PNET AS22212? Specifaly how it relates to their PNAP architecture? Is Internap now doing peering? I was under the impression that their entire business model was based around isolated PNAPs and being a backboneless provider. Attempts at getting an explanation from Internap have been fruitless. CT _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From yahoo at jimpop.com Mon Apr 28 12:44:23 2008 From: yahoo at jimpop.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:44:23 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <20080428130142.4F4FB38D602@lampinc.com> References: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> <481501E0.3020104@bogus.com> <20080428130142.4F4FB38D602@lampinc.com> Message-ID: <7ff145960804281044u2f2bff0ar91c255eaae715b57@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Dale Carstensen wrote: > I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them > to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet > another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple > customers viewing the same stream. > > Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are > operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator > community? I'm not sure of the particulars, but Hulu (NBC/Universal and News Corp) and FanCast (Comcast) seem to have an interesting relationship. I would love to know more, but i detest reading financials. ;-) -Jim P. From darren at bolding.org Mon Apr 28 13:08:10 2008 From: darren at bolding.org (Darren Bolding) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:08:10 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 In-Reply-To: <01d201c8a94a$dbe3c2b0$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> References: <01d201c8a94a$dbe3c2b0$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> Message-ID: <5a318d410804281108h5d2c551fia342ac32826e4b44@mail.gmail.com> As an Internap customer, I have been investigating this as well. I'm not sure when PNET got rolled out, but as best I can tell:: a) It is treated as an optional/another transit provider. E.G. When I have investigated changing routing policies to direct traffic to blocks over specific peers I have been given stats on all transit options and PNET was one of them. b) It's a fairly widespread mesh between PNAP's. I believe I have seen what appears to be private-peering between PNET and some large web properties. c) It certainly seemed like there was routing instability inside of PNET last week. d) I have noticed that the "default best" connection from Internap to various locations seems to have changed away from PNET, where it was going before. My guess is that the PNET internal connectivity is primarily MPLS based, as I have not seen TDM speeds across the PNET links, but rather "Internet" speeds. I'm not sure how PNET relates to PNAP-PNAP speeds and associated SLA's from Internap. --D On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Randy Epstein wrote: > Thurber, > > PNET (AS22212) is looked upon by InterNAP's PNAPs (its various ASes) as > just > another transit provider in the mix. > > So yes, InterNAP technically peers (under AS22212), but there is no > guarantee its various PNAPs would choose that path, depending upon a > number > of factors. > > (Disclaimer: This is what I've gathered from public information, not from > information obtained under non-disclosure.) > > Regards, > > Randy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thurber [mailto:ct at datagram.com] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:01 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 > > Can anybody shed some light on Internap's PNET AS22212? Specifaly how it > relates to their PNAP architecture? Is Internap now doing peering? I was > under the impression that their entire business model was based around > isolated PNAPs and being a backboneless provider. Attempts at getting an > explanation from Internap have been fruitless. > > CT > > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- darren at bolding.org -- From frnkblk at iname.com Mon Apr 28 15:26:55 2008 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk - iNAME) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:26:55 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <20080428130142.4F4FB38D602@lampinc.com> References: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> <481501E0.3020104@bogus.com> <20080428130142.4F4FB38D602@lampinc.com> Message-ID: Dale: ESPN360 used to be something that internet subscribers paid for themselves, but now it's something that ISPs (most interesting to those who are also video providers) can offer. If you google around you can find a pretty good Wikipedia page on ESPN360. I looked into this for our operations because we do both (internet and video). The price was reasonable and you only pay on the number of internet subs that meet their minimum performance standards. Since 50% of our user base is at 128/128 kbps, that's a lot of subscribers we didn't need to pay for. In the end, I didn't get buy-in from the rest of the management team into adding this. I think they perceived (and probably correctly so) that too few of our users would actually *use* it. If I could get even 2% of our customer base seriously interested I think we would move on this. BTW, there's no multicast (at lease from Disney/ABC directly) involved. It's just another unicast video stream like YouTube. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Dale Carstensen [mailto:dlc at lampinc.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:02 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? I became aware of something called espn360 last fall. I just did a google search so I could provide a URL, but one of the top search responses was a Aug 9, 2007 posting saying "ESPN360 Dies an Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality ..." I don't think it's dead, though, and maybe if you don't know about it, you can do your own google search. I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple customers viewing the same stream. Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator community? Mr. Dale _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From Marc.Williams at neustar.biz Mon Apr 28 16:43:47 2008 From: Marc.Williams at neustar.biz (Williams, Marc) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:43:47 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: <3A9B94EE-053E-48F2-ADB1-AFAD13BDBD86@let.de> <481501E0.3020104@bogus.com><20080428130142.4F4FB38D602@lampinc.com> Message-ID: > I looked into this for our operations because we do both > (internet and video). The price was reasonable That's interesting. Under the commercial television broadcast model of American networks such as ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, The CW and MyNetworkTV, affiliates give up portions of their local advertising airtime in exchange for network programming. From exstatica at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 18:56:54 2008 From: exstatica at gmail.com (Andrew Matthews) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:56:54 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Juniper vs Foundry Message-ID: <10f379910804281656p5b872f87i92c99a6d4f8879ee@mail.gmail.com> I'm looking to replace some old aging extreme black diamonds. I run a semi decent size data center and I'm looking at a few options. right now we run cables from patch to patch to a 2 core switches. So it takes 3 patch cables to get it all the way back to the core from the customers rack/shared rack. Our new plan is to put a few switches per row. for a total of 8 rows. So two switches per row. Now here are my options. Foundry: Two core switches which do all layer 3, edge switches on racks doing layer 2 vlans up to the core switch. Juniper: two layer 2 switches for distro, using Virtual Chassis groups for each set of switches on rows which do layer 3. Yes my OSPF grows because now instead of 2 layer 3 switches i now i have 8 VC groups. Anyone have any suggestions? Anyone using foundry? Anyone using Juniper Switches. What do you think? I know the juniper are pretty new and i'm looking at for some some success stories, but i'm also looking for some pitfalls, i know juniper has been in the routing industry for a long time, but as for switches this is a new product for them. Thanks Andrew From up at 3.am Mon Apr 28 18:36:54 2008 From: up at 3.am (up at 3.am) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? Message-ID: In 2006, I signed a 3 year contract with Broadwing for a 1 cabinet colocation with 6Mbs dedicated for under $1,000/mo. A few weeks ago, about halfway through this contract, I get a letter from Level 3's "Director of Colocation" that they are going to raise my price by several hundred dollars a month. I spoke with my new Level 3 rep, and he just notified me that their legal deparment confirms that all they have to do is give me 30 days notice to increase their price. This does not make sense to me. I am bound to a 3 year contract, where I have to pay them the rest of the term if I were to leave early, but they can jack up the price by 40-50% during that time, arbitrarily? I do not see that provision in my contract, and would rather avoid legal expenses if possible. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of thing from Level 3? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up at 3.am http://3.am ========================================================================= From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Tue Apr 29 03:30:43 2008 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:30:43 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16720fe00804290130y7659814cvefd69fcccece722c@mail.gmail.com> This sounds fairly accurate, it's all in how the contract is written. Jeff On 4/28/08, up at 3.am wrote: > > In 2006, I signed a 3 year contract with Broadwing for a 1 cabinet > colocation with 6Mbs dedicated for under $1,000/mo. A few weeks ago, > about halfway through this contract, I get a letter from Level 3's > "Director of Colocation" that they are going to raise my price by several > hundred dollars a month. > > I spoke with my new Level 3 rep, and he just notified me that their legal > deparment confirms that all they have to do is give me 30 days notice to > increase their price. > > This does not make sense to me. I am bound to a 3 year contract, where I > have to pay them the rest of the term if I were to leave early, but they > can jack up the price by 40-50% during that time, arbitrarily? I do not > see that provision in my contract, and would rather avoid legal expenses > if possible. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of thing from > Level 3? > > TIA, > > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor > up at 3.am http://3.am > ========================================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > -- Jeffrey Lyon, President Level III Information Systems Technician jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. The lower the latitude, the better my attitude. From repstein at chello.at Tue Apr 29 03:38:04 2008 From: repstein at chello.at (Randy Epstein) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:38:04 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> James, There should be a clause in the contract that allows you to cancel services if they change the terms and conditions of the agreement. I know that doesn't help you much, but at least it gives you an out. Randy -----Original Message----- From: up at 3.am [mailto:up at 3.am] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:37 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In 2006, I signed a 3 year contract with Broadwing for a 1 cabinet colocation with 6Mbs dedicated for under $1,000/mo. A few weeks ago, about halfway through this contract, I get a letter from Level 3's "Director of Colocation" that they are going to raise my price by several hundred dollars a month. I spoke with my new Level 3 rep, and he just notified me that their legal deparment confirms that all they have to do is give me 30 days notice to increase their price. This does not make sense to me. I am bound to a 3 year contract, where I have to pay them the rest of the term if I were to leave early, but they can jack up the price by 40-50% during that time, arbitrarily? I do not see that provision in my contract, and would rather avoid legal expenses if possible. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of thing from Level 3? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up at 3.am http://3.am ========================================================================= _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From gravasio at kng.it Tue Apr 29 04:47:56 2008 From: gravasio at kng.it (Giuseppe Ravasio) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:47:56 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] Need Hananet Contact Message-ID: <4816EECC.2010003@kng.it> Hi, I'm having troubles accessing Hananet DNS (AS9318) from AS44567. Probably because our IP Address space (93.92 etc etc) was listed in a very old version of Bogon Networks Block List ( http://www.team-cymru.org/?sec=8&opt=25 ) I tried some Hananet Whois Contacts but I haven't had any feedback. Do someone has a hananet working contact? Best regards Giuseppe Ravasio From repstein at chello.at Tue Apr 29 04:57:52 2008 From: repstein at chello.at (Randy Epstein) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:57:52 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Need Hananet Contact In-Reply-To: <4816EECC.2010003@kng.it> References: <4816EECC.2010003@kng.it> Message-ID: <032c01c8a9df$7f268090$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> Hello Giuseppe, noc {at} hanaro.com should work. The company is called Hanaro Telecom and their NOC phone number is +82 2 6266-6767. Randy -----Original Message----- From: Giuseppe Ravasio [mailto:gravasio at kng.it] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:48 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] Need Hananet Contact Hi, I'm having troubles accessing Hananet DNS (AS9318) from AS44567. Probably because our IP Address space (93.92 etc etc) was listed in a very old version of Bogon Networks Block List ( http://www.team-cymru.org/?sec=8&opt=25 ) I tried some Hananet Whois Contacts but I haven't had any feedback. Do someone has a hananet working contact? Best regards Giuseppe Ravasio _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From deepak at ai.net Tue Apr 29 07:17:34 2008 From: deepak at ai.net (Deepak Jain) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> Message-ID: <481711DE.40603@ai.net> Even if the provision Randy desribes isn't written in there, there is a fair amount of law that supports it. IANAL, but basically you can't agree to something like a price change you have no idea of in advance, so you can't agree to a 3-year term on it, (or 18 months) in advance. But as a practical matter, if they gave you 30 days to leave, you probably wouldn't sue them anyway... 3 years in litigation for damages you could easily (in most cases) avoid won't win you anything. But if you are looking for Level 3 to make any sense, you are going to be waiting a long, long, long time with the rest of us. They have never successfully "sold" much in their brief history. They have successfully acquired lots, and lots, and lots of revenue and then burned it off fabulously quickly. And there isn't even much value in short selling their shares.... alas. My $0.02, DJ Randy Epstein wrote: > James, > > There should be a clause in the contract that allows you to cancel services > if they change the terms and conditions of the agreement. > > I know that doesn't help you much, but at least it gives you an out. > > Randy > > -----Original Message----- > From: up at 3.am [mailto:up at 3.am] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:37 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? > > > In 2006, I signed a 3 year contract with Broadwing for a 1 cabinet > colocation with 6Mbs dedicated for under $1,000/mo. A few weeks ago, > about halfway through this contract, I get a letter from Level 3's > "Director of Colocation" that they are going to raise my price by several > hundred dollars a month. > > I spoke with my new Level 3 rep, and he just notified me that their legal > deparment confirms that all they have to do is give me 30 days notice to > increase their price. > > This does not make sense to me. I am bound to a 3 year contract, where I > have to pay them the rest of the term if I were to leave early, but they > can jack up the price by 40-50% during that time, arbitrarily? I do not > see that provision in my contract, and would rather avoid legal expenses > if possible. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of thing from > Level 3? > > TIA, > > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor > up at 3.am http://3.am > ========================================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > From owenc at hubris.net Tue Apr 29 09:09:48 2008 From: owenc at hubris.net (Chris Owen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:09:48 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: <481711DE.40603@ai.net> References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> Message-ID: <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: > But if you are looking for Level 3 to make any sense, you are going to > be waiting a long, long, long time with the rest of us. > > They have never successfully "sold" much in their brief history. They > have successfully acquired lots, and lots, and lots of revenue and > then > burned it off fabulously quickly. Yea, we were a Telcove customer and recently talked to our new Level3 salesperson (200 miles away). He basically told us they wouldn't be selling us anything new in the future (at any price) but it probably wouldn't matter because they would also be "rerating" our colo charges too. This in a datacenter that is at least 1/2 empty. It was clear from the conversation that he never considered for a moment that we might actually pay the new rate. He just assumed we were gone as soon as it happened. Obviously I don't have a business degree because I don't understand the business model of buying up business and then going out of your way to chase off their customers. The Level3 higher ups must see something I don't. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~ A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkgXLCwACgkQElUlCLUT2d3G7wCfWsTDKzqh3GqQZ/8StrFc1ZKc OoQAn0c/PA3s942QyHzQd3aSX+Of74yI =sJSy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com Tue Apr 29 09:25:38 2008 From: dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com (David Hubbard) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:25:38 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? Message-ID: From: Chris Owen [mailto:owenc at hubris.net] > > It was clear from the conversation that he never considered for a > moment that we might actually pay the new rate. He just assumed we > were gone as soon as it happened. Obviously I don't have a business > degree because I don't understand the business model of buying up > business and then going out of your way to chase off their > customers. > The Level3 higher ups must see something I don't. > I think the idea is that raise the rates dramatically on everyone, those who stay, now you're making more profit off of them, those that go were probably small enough that they were able to easily leave so you're clearing up room for the customers who are too large to profitably move and who have no choice but to continue growing in the existing space at the new inflated rates. Can't say I like it as a customer since I'm on the receiving end of a re-rate that increased costs by 50%, but makes business sense obviously since I didn't leave, as I'm sure many others didn't either. If you use a lot of power or floor space though, and not massive amounts of bandwidth, their new rates are very close to making it profitable to build your own facility, maybe they just want to sell bandwidth now. David From jabley at ca.afilias.info Tue Apr 29 10:18:07 2008 From: jabley at ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:18:07 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> Message-ID: On 29 Apr 2008, at 10:09 , Chris Owen wrote: > It was clear from the conversation that he never considered for a > moment that we might actually pay the new rate. He just assumed we > were gone as soon as it happened. Obviously I don't have a business > degree because I don't understand the business model of buying up > business and then going out of your way to chase off their customers. > The Level3 higher ups must see something I don't. From recent threads, the increasing price of power and cooling makes me think that colo providers would far rather have half the tenants paying double the price than have to retrofit facilities that are full to meet increasing demands for watts in and out. Joe From eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Apr 29 10:43:46 2008 From: eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:43:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> Message-ID: JA> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:18:07 -0400 JA> From: Joe Abley JA> From recent threads, the increasing price of power and cooling makes JA> me think that colo providers would far rather have half the tenants JA> paying double the price than have to retrofit facilities that are JA> full to meet increasing demands for watts in and out. But the facility Chris referenced is half-full -- at best. Not only is space plentiful, but cooling and electrical have plenty of reserve. The price still would be reasonable at a higher rate. The funny thing is, the facility is in a market so small that I doubt the DC's aggregated revenues meets L3's typical _per-customer_ minimum volume requirements. ;-) Perhaps L3 wanted the telco side of Telcove, and just plans to scuttle the IP stuff -- which has some pretty stupid "backhaul everything to ATL even though DFW is far closer" routing topology, anyhow. *shrug* Life goes on. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From up at 3.am Tue Apr 29 11:08:21 2008 From: up at 3.am (up at 3.am) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Chris Owen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: > >> But if you are looking for Level 3 to make any sense, you are going to >> be waiting a long, long, long time with the rest of us. >> >> They have never successfully "sold" much in their brief history. They >> have successfully acquired lots, and lots, and lots of revenue and >> then >> burned it off fabulously quickly. > > Yea, we were a Telcove customer and recently talked to our new Level3 > salesperson (200 miles away). He basically told us they wouldn't be > selling us anything new in the future (at any price) but it probably > wouldn't matter because they would also be "rerating" our colo charges > too. This in a datacenter that is at least 1/2 empty. The Broadwing Norristown facility is perhaps 25% used....a lot of empty space there. I have no idea what they are thinking...maybe Level 3 has big plans for it, or wants it shut down, because it's hard to see how it's profitable at a utilization rate that low. > It was clear from the conversation that he never considered for a > moment that we might actually pay the new rate. He just assumed we > were gone as soon as it happened. Obviously I don't have a business > degree because I don't understand the business model of buying up > business and then going out of your way to chase off their customers. > The Level3 higher ups must see something I don't. This letter had the "director's" name, but no way to contact him. No phone number, no email address. I basically had to make several phone calls to find my rep, since my original BWing rep was long gone.> James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up at 3.am http://3.am ========================================================================= From owenc at hubris.net Tue Apr 29 11:14:08 2008 From: owenc at hubris.net (Chris Owen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:14:08 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Edward B. DREGER wrote: > But the facility Chris referenced is half-full -- at best. Not only > is > space plentiful, but cooling and electrical have plenty of reserve. > The > price still would be reasonable at a higher rate. We would disagree. In fact, if we had not done so already this would have convinced us to take the previous poster's advice and built our own facility (just across the hall). Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~ A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkgXSVAACgkQElUlCLUT2d3jPwCglycZnjBKI7SoJnDpTkkzjAPK +b4An1VTV7biLcpiF6F1lgfjisEyZY8L =N0Rn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmamodio at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 11:31:31 2008 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:31:31 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202705b0804290931h2c4912c3t5bd3c00b407ee88d@mail.gmail.com> > Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ? > besides the multicast argument, ipv6 and the transition to it with dual stacks, etc, etc, afaik will require more horsepower and memory to handle routing info/updates, don't think so it will reduce energy consumption au contraire. one place where major improvements can be made is to increase the efficiency of switched power supplies on servers and other gear installed in large datacenters. My .02 From robert at tellurian.com Tue Apr 29 11:31:50 2008 From: robert at tellurian.com (Robert Boyle) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:31:50 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> Message-ID: <1209486736_911469@mail1.tellurian.net> At 12:08 PM 4/29/2008, you wrote: >The Broadwing Norristown facility is perhaps 25% used....a lot of empty >space there. I have no idea what they are thinking...maybe Level 3 has >big plans for it, or wants it shut down, because it's hard to see how it's >profitable at a utilization rate that low. We are getting rid of our rack at L3's Norristown facility next month too. At the old price it was a good deal. At four times the price, we'll move our two PRIs left to another facility. Our AS5300 is using maybe 150W total. The rest of the rack is empty. -Robert Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin From patrick at zill.net Tue Apr 29 12:17:15 2008 From: patrick at zill.net (Patrick Giagnocavo) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:17:15 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> Message-ID: <4817581B.1080807@zill.net> Every indication from talk with former Level3 employees is that they bought Telcove for the metro fiber footprint and the huge 70,000 voice line and data contract with the state of Pennsylvania. Now they are in the process of getting rid of anyone below some internally-set amount of business, in one way or another. They will then focus on the "NFL cities" for colocation and only provide bandwidth/transport/other network services to everyone else. --Patrick From frank at dticonsulting.com Tue Apr 29 14:05:19 2008 From: frank at dticonsulting.com (Frank Coluccio) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:05:19 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM Message-ID: <3380.1209495919@dticonsulting.com> re: "the latest CPL technology from Nortel is a real breakthrough, for once a vendor has listened and understood the challenges for operators and actively addressed our concerns." When CPL was appeared I found its architecture refreshingly straightforward, as you've also noted, which was best demonstrated (to me, at least) by Kees Neggers within SURFnet6 throughout the Netherlands about three years ago (thus allowing him to offload boatloads of Layer3 gear). I'm not sure which issue of the Cook Report it was in, but the details of this SURFnet6 deployment were captured in an interview of Neggers quite nicely by Gordon Cook in one of his reports during that era. During the intervening three years, however, advancements in dispersion management have been introduced and opened the door for some new players, such as Infinera, whose use of electronic dispersion compensation (EDC) in its WDM platforms has now given it somewhat of an edge, or so it seems at the moment, based on the market share it has gained in a very short time. I'm hardly suggesting that Infinera trumps the former CPL approach across all areas of design consideration, but only that it's an approach that merits investigation. I should note that Infinera went diametrically against the grain of the "all-optical" holy grail that is commonly sought by many, and actually leverages its ability to perform functions in the 'electronic' domain a lot more efficiently than other vendors have been capable of achieving in the purely optical domain, thus positioning itself in a category that's pretty much all its own today. I'd be eager to read comments and criticisms from anyone who's had actual experience with its wares. Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile On Fri Apr 25 9:31 , "Neil J. McRae" sent: >The current technologies for DWDM have really made it technology >that's reasonably straight forward to deploy. The last >generation was a nightmare! > >Tuneable optics, dispersion compensation, and ROADM have made >a substantial difference to deploying and operating DWDM networks. > >I had experience with the former generation system from Nortel >which although very reliable it was very resource intensive >to deploy new services, the latest CPL technology from Nortel >is a real breakthrough, for once a vendor has listened and understood >the challenges for operators and actively addressed our concerns. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott E. MacKenzie [smackenzie at qf.org.qa','','','')">smackenzie at qf.org.qa] >Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM >To: NANOG >Subject: [NANOG] DWDM > > >Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for >Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? > >We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... > > >Scott > > > >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >NANOG at nanog.org >http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From deepak at ai.net Tue Apr 29 14:21:19 2008 From: deepak at ai.net (Deepak Jain) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:21:19 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] L3's plan was: Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts? In-Reply-To: <4817581B.1080807@zill.net> References: <031201c8a9d4$591a5d00$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> <481711DE.40603@ai.net> <235DA607-165F-4FA1-BBC7-C520CCA83F34@hubris.net> <4817581B.1080807@zill.net> Message-ID: <4817752F.4040509@ai.net> > > They will then focus on the "NFL cities" for colocation and only provide > bandwidth/transport/other network services to everyone else. > Can we discuss how ridiculous the "NFL cities" model is? Yes, I get it. NFL cities meet a certain size criteria in terms of business, population, talent, etc. [feel free to replace NFL cities by: Tier "1" Cities/Metros, Major passenger or cargo airports, historic Train locations, Blockbuster Locations, Fedex depots, etc] But when you compare your business plan to *every* other National/International player that has the EXACT same plan and city map... um... where is your differentiation? (Even if one calls its NFL cities and one calls it "Major Airports") The ridiculous part of the plan is that a) it does not obviate the need for in-between depots of connectivity [for regens, ROADMs, etc] and b) each city has a different specific mix of data/colo/IP/voice/what have you based on local demographics (and incumbents)... and there is no planning of right-sizing capex and revenue. Oh well, I think I'll be concerned when a company actually has a real business plan rather than something recycled from the bottom of a box of Cracker Jack's. Operational Content: While there are significant opex costs to removed by making places like WDC, SFO, JFK/LGA, LAX and others great hubs of interconnectivity there is a) an over-concentration of SPOFs and vulnerability to localized infrastructure threats, and b) hyper competition in some markets and gross under competition in others. The profits many of these carriers seek may come from running a few colos in "2nd tier" cities at much higher prices than they can charge in the "1st tier" cities. But then again -- if these guys had to show profits, they wouldn't be the guys they are today... They might even have executives with a proper business pedigree (you know MBAs or better from places that don't advertise on billboards and at professional sporting events) and not need to piss away billions in revenues to meet their use guidelines. Does Level3 have a stadium yet? I think they need one to brand so they can finally file for that BK that's been hanging around their neck for years. Deepak Jain AiNET From frank at dticonsulting.com Tue Apr 29 14:30:51 2008 From: frank at dticonsulting.com (Frank Coluccio) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:30:51 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM Message-ID: <3640.1209497451@dticonsulting.com> ps - a 2007 updated prezo on SURFnet6's DWDM network presented by Erik-Jan Bos: http://www.ces.net/doc/seminars/cef2007/p/bos.ppt -- On Tue Apr 29 15:05 , Frank Coluccio sent: >re: "the latest CPL technology from Nortel is a real breakthrough, for once a >vendor has listened and understood the challenges for operators and actively >addressed our concerns." > >When CPL was appeared I found its architecture refreshingly straightforward, as >you've also noted, which was best demonstrated (to me, at least) by Kees Neggers >within SURFnet6 throughout the Netherlands about three years ago (thus allowing >him to offload boatloads of Layer3 gear). > >I'm not sure which issue of the Cook Report it was in, but the details of this >SURFnet6 deployment were captured in an interview of Neggers quite nicely by >Gordon Cook in one of his reports during that era. > >During the intervening three years, however, advancements in dispersion >management have been introduced and opened the door for some new players, such as >Infinera, whose use of electronic dispersion compensation (EDC) in its WDM >platforms has now given it somewhat of an edge, or so it seems at the moment, >based on the market share it has gained in a very short time. I'm hardly >suggesting that Infinera trumps the former CPL approach across all areas of >design consideration, but only that it's an approach that merits investigation. > >I should note that Infinera went diametrically against the grain of the >"all-optical" holy grail that is commonly sought by many, and actually leverages >its ability to perform functions in the 'electronic' domain a lot more >efficiently than other vendors have been capable of achieving in the purely >optical domain, thus positioning itself in a category that's pretty much all its >own today. I'd be eager to read comments and criticisms from anyone who's had >actual experience with its wares. > >Frank A. Coluccio >DTI Consulting Inc. >212-587-8150 Office >347-526-6788 Mobile > >On Fri Apr 25 9:31 , "Neil J. McRae" sent: > >>The current technologies for DWDM have really made it technology >>that's reasonably straight forward to deploy. The last >>generation was a nightmare! >> >>Tuneable optics, dispersion compensation, and ROADM have made >>a substantial difference to deploying and operating DWDM networks. >> >>I had experience with the former generation system from Nortel >>which although very reliable it was very resource intensive >>to deploy new services, the latest CPL technology from Nortel >>is a real breakthrough, for once a vendor has listened and understood >>the challenges for operators and actively addressed our concerns. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott E. MacKenzie [smackenzie at qf.org.qa','','','')">smackenzie at qf.org.qa] >>Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM >>To: NANOG >>Subject: [NANOG] DWDM >> >> >>Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for >>Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? >> >>We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... >> >> >>Scott >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>NANOG mailing list >>NANOG at nanog.org >>http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >NANOG at nanog.org >http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From neil at DOMINO.ORG Tue Apr 29 15:19:10 2008 From: neil at DOMINO.ORG (Neil J. McRae) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:19:10 +0100 Subject: [NANOG] DWDM In-Reply-To: <3640.1209497451@dticonsulting.com> References: <3640.1209497451@dticonsulting.com> Message-ID: <000901c8aa36$49c5b9f0$dd512dd0$@ORG> Frank, Agreed, the infinera platform is very good also. thanks for he link. Neil. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Coluccio [mailto:frank at dticonsulting.com] Sent: 29 April 2008 20:31 To: NANOG; Neil J. McRae; Frank Coluccio Subject: Re: [NANOG] DWDM ps - a 2007 updated prezo on SURFnet6's DWDM network presented by Erik-Jan Bos: http://www.ces.net/doc/seminars/cef2007/p/bos.ppt -- On Tue Apr 29 15:05 , Frank Coluccio sent: >re: "the latest CPL technology from Nortel is a real breakthrough, for once a >vendor has listened and understood the challenges for operators and actively >addressed our concerns." > >When CPL was appeared I found its architecture refreshingly straightforward, as >you've also noted, which was best demonstrated (to me, at least) by Kees Neggers >within SURFnet6 throughout the Netherlands about three years ago (thus allowing >him to offload boatloads of Layer3 gear). > >I'm not sure which issue of the Cook Report it was in, but the details of this >SURFnet6 deployment were captured in an interview of Neggers quite nicely by >Gordon Cook in one of his reports during that era. > >During the intervening three years, however, advancements in dispersion >management have been introduced and opened the door for some new players, such as >Infinera, whose use of electronic dispersion compensation (EDC) in its WDM >platforms has now given it somewhat of an edge, or so it seems at the moment, >based on the market share it has gained in a very short time. I'm hardly >suggesting that Infinera trumps the former CPL approach across all areas of >design consideration, but only that it's an approach that merits investigation. > >I should note that Infinera went diametrically against the grain of the >"all-optical" holy grail that is commonly sought by many, and actually leverages >its ability to perform functions in the 'electronic' domain a lot more >efficiently than other vendors have been capable of achieving in the purely >optical domain, thus positioning itself in a category that's pretty much all its >own today. I'd be eager to read comments and criticisms from anyone who's had >actual experience with its wares. > >Frank A. Coluccio >DTI Consulting Inc. >212-587-8150 Office >347-526-6788 Mobile > >On Fri Apr 25 9:31 , "Neil J. McRae" sent: > >>The current technologies for DWDM have really made it technology >>that's reasonably straight forward to deploy. The last >>generation was a nightmare! >> >>Tuneable optics, dispersion compensation, and ROADM have made >>a substantial difference to deploying and operating DWDM networks. >> >>I had experience with the former generation system from Nortel >>which although very reliable it was very resource intensive >>to deploy new services, the latest CPL technology from Nortel >>is a real breakthrough, for once a vendor has listened and understood >>the challenges for operators and actively addressed our concerns. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott E. MacKenzie [smackenzie at qf.org.qa','','','')">smackenzie at qf.org.qa] >>Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 AM >>To: NANOG >>Subject: [NANOG] DWDM >> >> >>Does anyone know where I can locate a list of DWDM networks deployed for >>Education, Science & Research, and Commercialization? >> >>We need to determine the practicality of DWDM use... >> >> >>Scott >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>NANOG mailing list >>NANOG at nanog.org >>http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >NANOG at nanog.org >http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From bpalmer at fxcm.com Tue Apr 29 15:25:40 2008 From: bpalmer at fxcm.com (Brandon Palmer) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:25:40 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48174C04.6AD7.0046.0@fxcm.com> They have a bunch of transit providers they use, PNET is yet another path that they can use. They have enough traffic that goes PNAP <--> PNAP that I presume it would be cheaper to use their own dark fiber or something than to keep paying the other transit providers. >>> Thurber 4/28/2008 12:01 PM >>> Can anybody shed some light on Internap's PNET AS22212? Specifaly how it relates to their PNAP architecture? Is Internap now doing peering? I was under the impression that their entire business model was based around isolated PNAPs and being a backboneless provider. Attempts at getting an explanation from Internap have been fruitless. CT _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From max.clark at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 16:30:30 2008 From: max.clark at gmail.com (Max Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:30:30 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 In-Reply-To: <01d201c8a94a$dbe3c2b0$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> References: <01d201c8a94a$dbe3c2b0$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F> Message-ID: <2fa1e1780804291430h41dbc256o9721754841766a13@mail.gmail.com> It's actually very easy to explain. The InterNAP Flow Control (FCP) was designed to route traffic via the cheapest link available provided the link is within an operating range. Over the years the PNAPs have "preferred" different transit providers based on the underlying contract rate - but what rate could possibly be better than free(1)? So as time passes you will more than likely see more and more of AS22212 in your path. -Max 1. Peering is not free, but much less expensive than paying AT&T. On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Randy Epstein wrote: > Thurber, > > PNET (AS22212) is looked upon by InterNAP's PNAPs (its various ASes) as just > another transit provider in the mix. > > So yes, InterNAP technically peers (under AS22212), but there is no > guarantee its various PNAPs would choose that path, depending upon a number > of factors. > > (Disclaimer: This is what I've gathered from public information, not from > information obtained under non-disclosure.) > > Regards, > > Randy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thurber [mailto:ct at datagram.com] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:01 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: [NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212 > > Can anybody shed some light on Internap's PNET AS22212? Specifaly how it > relates to their PNAP architecture? Is Internap now doing peering? I was > under the impression that their entire business model was based around > isolated PNAPs and being a backboneless provider. Attempts at getting an > explanation from Internap have been fruitless. > > CT > > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From marc at let.de Tue Apr 29 16:48:00 2008 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:48:00 +0200 Subject: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? In-Reply-To: <202705b0804290931h2c4912c3t5bd3c00b407ee88d@mail.gmail.com> References: <202705b0804290931h2c4912c3t5bd3c00b407ee88d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 29.04.2008 um 18:31 schrieb Jorge Amodio: > besides the multicast argument, hi Jorge , all ok, i was talking about a "campus" installation imagine you want to broadcast a live event so 10.000 unicast streams and 10.000 multicast stream for example. from what toni replyed , you need less horsepower with the multicast streams > For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers. but would like to know how this could be calculated. my 00.2 ;) marc - Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 K?ln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :marc at kgraff.net blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org Klarmachen zum ?ndern! http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de From waf at brunz.org Tue Apr 29 23:13:45 2008 From: waf at brunz.org (Wayne Feick) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:13:45 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] nanog list is now archived in MarkMail Message-ID: <1209528825.14102.34.camel@waf.brunz.org> This is just a quick note to let people know that another list archive is now available. The company I work for, MarkLogic, sells a server that combines XML database, search engine, and app server capabilities in a single platform. As a demonstration of what can be done with our server, some of our people have created MarkMail (http://www.markmail.org/) to archive public mailing lists. So far, over 2000 lists containing over 11M emails have been loaded. I've been a lurker here from back when I worked at RouteScience, and thought it'd be useful to get nanog added in to our system. As of today, thanks to some help from Sue Joiner, nanog archives going back to April '94 have been loaded and we're subscribed to the list going forward. The archive is available at http://nanog.markmail.org/ This is a free service with no advertising. Our intent is just to provide a useful application with the goal of getting people to say "Hey, I want one of those!" I'll leave it at that to not run afoul of the AUP with respect to marketing. Enjoy. Wayne. From mack at exchange.alphared.com Tue Apr 29 23:43:46 2008 From: mack at exchange.alphared.com (mack) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:43:46 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast latency Message-ID: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in latency within Comcast's network? -- LR Mack McBride Network Administrator Alpha Red, Inc. From smb at cs.columbia.edu Wed Apr 30 07:14:18 2008 From: smb at cs.columbia.edu (Steven M. Bellovin) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:14:18 +0000 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast latency In-Reply-To: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> Message-ID: <20080430121418.0cd50c6c@cs.columbia.edu> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:43:46 -0500 mack wrote: > Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in latency within > Comcast's network? > On one quick test, it looks normal to me from my house. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb From yahoo at jimpop.com Wed Apr 30 08:46:38 2008 From: yahoo at jimpop.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:46:38 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast latency In-Reply-To: <20080430121418.0cd50c6c@cs.columbia.edu> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> <20080430121418.0cd50c6c@cs.columbia.edu> Message-ID: <7ff145960804300646t43d3eec1y38f5e0924ea45394@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:43:46 -0500 > mack wrote: > > > Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in latency within > > Comcast's network? > > > On one quick test, it looks normal to me from my house. Looks can sometimes be deceiving. ;-) I've seen Comcast drop packets left and right, but show 8Mbs/2Mbs on speed test sites. Other times I've seen the opposite, zero PL but extremely high latency (seconds, double digits!)... all the while non-dynamic web pages (probably cached upstream) loaded just fine. Look, I've always been a big fan of Comcast.... but at this point I suspect they have just about over-engineered their network. -Jim P. From bigwavedave at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 09:26:03 2008 From: bigwavedave at gmail.com (Big Wave Dave) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:26:03 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast latency In-Reply-To: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> Message-ID: <8e124f160804300726q18fcaf0yc1a149a87c9b0a6b@mail.gmail.com> As luck would have it, I have been running Smokeping from my home connection (Comcast Business) pointed towards Comcast Residential (and other broadband providers) routers for a few weeks. I'm not sure when you saw the latency increase, but if it has been in the past few weeks, I might actually have useful data for you. If you (or others) are interested in access, please contact me off-list. Dave On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:43 PM, mack wrote: > Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in latency within Comcast's network? > > -- > LR Mack McBride > Network Administrator > Alpha Red, Inc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From r.engehausen at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 13:01:12 2008 From: r.engehausen at gmail.com (Roy) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:01:12 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? Message-ID: <4818B3E8.1070101@gmail.com> I am hearing of problems from AT&T DSL customer to some destinations on the Internet. Is anyone else hearing these reports? From bpfankuch at cpgreeley.com Wed Apr 30 13:23:01 2008 From: bpfankuch at cpgreeley.com (Blake Pfankuch) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:23:01 -0600 Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? In-Reply-To: <4818B3E8.1070101@gmail.com> References: <4818B3E8.1070101@gmail.com> Message-ID: <97E08945C0C1024FA818C68D6F252D6501FFBB94@exserver.cpgreeley.com> Im hearing the same thing from qwest customers. Whats weird is sometimes they can ping the ip of the destination, but services like HTTP HTTPS are not available. I can duplicate it from a colom machine in Chicago, but the site works fine from my house as well as the office. -----Original Message----- From: Roy [mailto:r.engehausen at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:01 PM To: nanog Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? I am hearing of problems from AT&T DSL customer to some destinations on the Internet. Is anyone else hearing these reports? _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From criling at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 13:31:26 2008 From: criling at gmail.com (Chris Riling) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:31:26 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? In-Reply-To: <8c829ec10804301114m5cac72docdb900c98b1d7fe3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4818B3E8.1070101@gmail.com> <8c829ec10804301114m5cac72docdb900c98b1d7fe3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8c829ec10804301131l7b7d24c1ld6c9096c669ed607@mail.gmail.com> Forgot to copy the list on this one... Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris Riling Date: Apr 30, 2008 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? To: Roy I've had a couple reports from some customers that have eluded to AT&T having routing problems in general... I think our call center confirmed this with AT&T as well... Chris On 4/30/08, Roy wrote: > > I am hearing of problems from AT&T DSL customer to some destinations on > the Internet. Is anyone else hearing these reports? > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG at nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > From rfuji at doit.cccounty.us Wed Apr 30 13:30:53 2008 From: rfuji at doit.cccounty.us (Rex Fujikawa) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:30:53 -0700 Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? In-Reply-To: <97E08945C0C1024FA818C68D6F252D6501FFBB94@exserver.cpgreeley.com> References: <4818B3E8.1070101@gmail.com> <97E08945C0C1024FA818C68D6F252D6501FFBB94@exserver.cpgreeley.com> Message-ID: The ATTIS National IP Resource Center status message says they are having some routing issues. Rex "Blake Pfankuch" 04/30/2008 11:23 AM To "Roy" , "nanog" cc Subject Re: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? Im hearing the same thing from qwest customers. Whats weird is sometimes they can ping the ip of the destination, but services like HTTP HTTPS are not available. I can duplicate it from a colom machine in Chicago, but the site works fine from my house as well as the office. -----Original Message----- From: Roy [mailto:r.engehausen at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:01 PM To: nanog Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? I am hearing of problems from AT&T DSL customer to some destinations on the Internet. Is anyone else hearing these reports? _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From jonh at hopkinsmfg.com Wed Apr 30 14:14:51 2008 From: jonh at hopkinsmfg.com (Jonathan Houston) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:14:51 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? In-Reply-To: <97E08945C0C1024FA818C68D6F252D6501FFBB94@exserver.cpgreeley.com> References: <4818B3E8.1070101@gmail.com> <97E08945C0C1024FA818C68D6F252D6501FFBB94@exserver.cpgreeley.com> Message-ID: <48187EDB020000CE0000507A@gwlinux> We have 2 DSL lines through AT&T and both have been experiencing network issues. >From traceroutes from either DSL it appears to be a problem with ex2-p10-0.pxpaca.sbcglobal.net. We have been in contact with AT&T Tier 2 and they are aware of the issue. The incident ID for the issue is 1033033. As of about 2:00 CST our traceroute seem to be bypassing that particular hop. >>> "Blake Pfankuch" 04/30/08 1:23 PM >>> Im hearing the same thing from qwest customers. Whats weird is sometimes they can ping the ip of the destination, but services like HTTP HTTPS are not available. I can duplicate it from a colom machine in Chicago, but the site works fine from my house as well as the office. -----Original Message----- From: Roy [mailto:r.engehausen at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:01 PM To: nanog Subject: [NANOG] AT&T DSL problems? I am hearing of problems from AT&T DSL customer to some destinations on the Internet. Is anyone else hearing these reports? _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From mike at sentex.net Wed Apr 30 14:17:35 2008 From: mike at sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:17:35 -0400 Subject: [NANOG] AS7132 issues in Chicago to Cogent and Teleglobe ? Message-ID: <200804301915.m3UJFWjH038364@lava.sentex.ca> One of my customers (out of AS11647) is seeing a lot of packet loss to their office in SBC's network (AS7132). The site is behind one of SBC's BASes (67.36.65.16). Pinging 67.36.65.16 when the path is through Cogent and Teleglobe is showing periodic packet loss. It will be clean, and then all of a sudden I cant ping 67.36.65.16 (and anything past it) for about 15 seconds and then its clean again.... Both my Teleglobe and Cogent paths meet SBC/ATT in Chicago, so I wonder if there is a common fault there or near there ? My customer's US operations tried opening a ticket but was not able to get any info to SBC/ATT past first level support. Anyone know of any issues ? ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike at sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike From jsharpe at cyberlynk.net Wed Apr 30 16:36:07 2008 From: jsharpe at cyberlynk.net (Jeffrey Sharpe) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:36:07 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] AS7132 issues in Chicago to Cogent and Teleglobe ? In-Reply-To: <200804301915.m3UJFWjH038364@lava.sentex.ca> References: <200804301915.m3UJFWjH038364@lava.sentex.ca> Message-ID: <01be01c8ab0a$32fe2c00$98fa8400$@net> Seeing the same here, 1st level seems clueless. ------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey Sharpe CyberLynk Helpdesk and Support 414.858.9335 or 800.942.8022 jsharpe at cyberlynk.net ------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:mike at sentex.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:18 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] AS7132 issues in Chicago to Cogent and Teleglobe ? One of my customers (out of AS11647) is seeing a lot of packet loss to their office in SBC's network (AS7132). The site is behind one of SBC's BASes (67.36.65.16). Pinging 67.36.65.16 when the path is through Cogent and Teleglobe is showing periodic packet loss. It will be clean, and then all of a sudden I cant ping 67.36.65.16 (and anything past it) for about 15 seconds and then its clean again.... Both my Teleglobe and Cogent paths meet SBC/ATT in Chicago, so I wonder if there is a common fault there or near there ? My customer's US operations tried opening a ticket but was not able to get any info to SBC/ATT past first level support. Anyone know of any issues ? ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike at sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG at nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Wed Apr 30 18:31:48 2008 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:31:48 -0600 Subject: [NANOG] Comcast latency In-Reply-To: <7ff145960804300646t43d3eec1y38f5e0924ea45394@mail.gmail.com> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F88AD03AEA2F@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> <20080430121418.0cd50c6c@cs.columbia.edu> <7ff145960804300646t43d3eec1y38f5e0924ea45394@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080430233148.GA15655@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 09:46:38AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: > Looks can sometimes be deceiving. ;-) I've seen Comcast drop packets > left and right, but show 8Mbs/2Mbs on speed test sites. Other times > I've seen the opposite, zero PL but extremely high latency (seconds, > double digits!)... all the while non-dynamic web pages (probably > cached upstream) loaded just fine. I had mrt running across a Comcast connection that indicated a 14000 ms RTT for one packet out of several hundred. I wasn't sure that was a trustworthy measurement, but it sure suprised me. Another time, I had a VOIP conversation fall apart once with somone on a Comcast link. When the jitter finally fell into a reasonable range, the call sounded *great* again -- but there was a 4 second latency that had been introduced. It was wild. I kept wondering -- "where was this buffered? Are we on a satellite backup route?" We kept the conversation going for a while just for the sheer novelty. Overall, my data points on Comcast point to a pretty solid service -- but the outliers are pretty impressive in their own right.