From skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com Tue Jul 1 00:02:08 2014 From: skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com (Skeeve Stevens) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:02:08 +1000 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> References: <53B105B5.10908@direcpath.com> <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> Message-ID: Roland, as always you remind me of the important things to remember. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Robert Drake wrote: > > > Total PPS or bandwidth is the number you need rather than number of > customers. > > Also, be sure you have S/RTBH or some other mechanism southbound of the > NAT for dealing with compromised/abusive hosts which can chew up the > state-table with SYN-floods and the like. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins // > > Equo ne credite, Teucri. > > -- Laocoön > > From skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com Tue Jul 1 00:03:40 2014 From: skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com (Skeeve Stevens) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:03:40 +1000 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: <81415AF7-4DC7-4A91-9D6E-4A596C4F9B73@arbor.net> References: <53B105B5.10908@direcpath.com> <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> <004701cf9449$1eebd850$5cc388f0$@wicks.co.nz> <81415AF7-4DC7-4A91-9D6E-4A596C4F9B73@arbor.net> Message-ID: Roland, what methods are the easiest/cheapest way to deal with this? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: > > > From experience (we ran out of IPv4 a long time ago in the APNIC region) > this is not needed, > > I've seen huge problems from compromised machines completely killing NATs > from the southbound side. > > > what is needed however is session timeouts. > > This can help, but it isn't a solution to the botted/abusive machine > problem. They'll just keep right on pumping out packets and establishing > new sessions, 'crowding out' legitimate users and filling up the > state-table, maxing the CPU. Embryonic connection limits and all that > stuff aren't enough, either. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins // > > Equo ne credite, Teucri. > > -- Laocoön > > From skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com Tue Jul 1 00:22:37 2014 From: skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com (Skeeve Stevens) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:22:37 +1000 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: <96782.1404135619@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <96782.1404135619@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Hi Valdis, Re 1.. completely understand. The environment is such that we will openly state what does and doesn't work. It is a captive environment and the users don't have a choice who they use. Think large university dorm (about 600) for part of the customer base. Re 2.. The larger design is already approved and budgeted for... this is a proof-of-concept cheap solution to see if the uptake happens as expensive. I agree with you that we should just build it the right was the first time, but the people paying want to do it this way. And in the end, I am just the designer, if they leave it in place, it is not really my concern, they have my advice. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:59:47 +1000, Skeeve Stevens said: > > > I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential > profile > > NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. > > > This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the > > typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in > > what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which > > may work. > > Pitfall 1: Make sure you have enough support desk to handle calls from > everybody who's doing something that doesn't play nice with CGN/NAT444. > And remember that unless "screw you, find another provider" is an > acceptable > response to a customer, those calls are going to be major resource sinks to > resolve to the customer's satisfaction... > > Pitfall 2: These sort of short-term solutions often end up still in > use well after their sell-by date. If you're planning to deploy a > new solution in 6 months, maybe throwing resources at a short-term fix > is counterproductive and the resources should go towards making the current > solution hold together and deploying the long-term solution... > From skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com Tue Jul 1 00:28:51 2014 From: skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com (Skeeve Stevens) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:28:51 +1000 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: <53B152DB.5000103@megagroup.ru> References: <53B105B5.10908@direcpath.com> <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> <004701cf9449$1eebd850$5cc388f0$@wicks.co.nz> <81415AF7-4DC7-4A91-9D6E-4A596C4F9B73@arbor.net> <53B152DB.5000103@megagroup.ru> Message-ID: Great advice Stepan. Re user support. It is a greenfield environment so we're in the position to say 'this is how it is and what you get'. Re usage profile. No idea what to expect from users as there is nothing to measure. I've actually not designed a NAT444 solution for residential profiles before so never had to worry about what they did. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > On 30.06.2014 14:12, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > I've seen huge problems from compromised machines completely killing > > NATs from the southbound side. > > It depends on CGN solution used. Some of them will just block new > translations for that user after reaching the limit, and that's it. > > > On 30.06.2014 09:59, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential > > profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. > > > I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider > > other options, including open source.... Obviously the cheaper the > > better. > > ASR1k NAT is known to be problematic (nat overload specifically), don't > know if they fixed it yet. I recommend to check this with the vendor first. > > New Juniper MS-MIC/MS-MPC multiservices cards can be used but > feature-parity with MS-DPC isn't there yet. For example, you can have a > working CGN with most bells and whistles, but you can't use IDS. You can > (probably) use deterministic nat with max ports/sessions per user, but > sometimes it's not enough. Again, ask the vendor for > details/roadmaps/solutions. > > Both those options aren't really cheap though. > > Cheaper would be something like Mikrotik but I wouldn't touch that sh*t > with a ten-foot pole. It might work but you'll pay for that with your > sanity and sleep hours. > > Speaking of cheap and open-source, I know several relatively large > implementations using Linux boxes. One Linux NAT box can chew on at > least 1Gb/s of traffic, or even more with a careful selection of > hardware and even more careful tuning, and you can load-balance between > them, but it's much more effort and it isn't robust enough (which is the > reason why they all migrate to better solutions later). > > > BTW, I agree that you should speak in PPS and bandwidth instead of > number of users, those are much better as a metric. > > > > This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the > > typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - > > as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any > > work-arounds which may work. > > Try to pair a user IP with a public IP, that way you'll workaround most > websites/games/applications expecting publicly visible user IP to be the > same for all connections. > > Start with selected few active customers, check how much connections > they use with different NAT settings. Double/triple that. Then do the > math of how many ports/IPs you need per X users, don't just guess it. > Then try to limit it and see if anything breaks. > > By working with them you can also workaround some of the problems you > didn't think about before. Seriously. Fix it before you roll it out. > > What anyone implementing CGN should expect is complaints from users for > any number of reasons, like their IPSEC or L2TP tunnel stopped working, > or some application behaves strangely and so on. Prepare your > techsupport for that. > > > This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 > > months)... it is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and > > once it reaches that point then funds will be freed up to roll out a > > more robust, carrier-grade and long term solution (which will include > > v6). So no criticism on not doing v6 straight up please. > > Heh. Nothing lasts longer than temporary solutions. You should implement > it like you're going to live it for years (probably true) or you'll > create yourself a huge PITA very soon. > > > > From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 1 00:27:45 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:27:45 -0700 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: With enough horsepower, iptables+Linux is adequate for this, depending on your requirements. I would want to put as little money as possible behind CGN in favor of moving as much as possible towards IPv6 instead. Owen On Jun 29, 2014, at 22:59 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Hi all, > > I am sure this is something that a reasonable number of people would have > done on this list. > > I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile > NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. > > I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider other > options, including open source.... Obviously the cheaper the better. > > This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the > typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in > what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which > may work. > > This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it > is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that > point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade > and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not > doing v6 straight up please. > > Happy for feedback off-list of any solutions that people have found work > well... > > Note, I am in Australia so any vendors which aren't easily accessible down > here, won't be useful. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 1 00:39:04 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:39:04 -0700 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: References: <53B105B5.10908@direcpath.com> <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> <004701cf9449$1eebd850$5cc388f0$@wicks.co.nz> <81415AF7-4DC7-4A91-9D6E-4A596C4F9B73@arbor.net> <53B152DB.5000103@megagroup.ru> Message-ID: <13461E3B-734C-4D4C-80EE-7B3AD86D155D@delong.com> Greenfield or not, unless you can expect that 100% of the users have never had internet access anywhere else before, you may be up against expectations you are not meeting with NAT444. Owen On Jun 30, 2014, at 17:28 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Great advice Stepan. > > Re user support. It is a greenfield environment so we're in the position > to say 'this is how it is and what you get'. > > Re usage profile. No idea what to expect from users as there is nothing to > measure. I've actually not designed a NAT444 solution for residential > profiles before so never had to worry about what they did. > > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Stepan Kucherenko > wrote: > >> On 30.06.2014 14:12, Roland Dobbins wrote: >>> I've seen huge problems from compromised machines completely killing >>> NATs from the southbound side. >> >> It depends on CGN solution used. Some of them will just block new >> translations for that user after reaching the limit, and that's it. >> >> >> On 30.06.2014 09:59, Skeeve Stevens wrote: >>> I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential >>> profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. >> >>> I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider >>> other options, including open source.... Obviously the cheaper the >>> better. >> >> ASR1k NAT is known to be problematic (nat overload specifically), don't >> know if they fixed it yet. I recommend to check this with the vendor first. >> >> New Juniper MS-MIC/MS-MPC multiservices cards can be used but >> feature-parity with MS-DPC isn't there yet. For example, you can have a >> working CGN with most bells and whistles, but you can't use IDS. You can >> (probably) use deterministic nat with max ports/sessions per user, but >> sometimes it's not enough. Again, ask the vendor for >> details/roadmaps/solutions. >> >> Both those options aren't really cheap though. >> >> Cheaper would be something like Mikrotik but I wouldn't touch that sh*t >> with a ten-foot pole. It might work but you'll pay for that with your >> sanity and sleep hours. >> >> Speaking of cheap and open-source, I know several relatively large >> implementations using Linux boxes. One Linux NAT box can chew on at >> least 1Gb/s of traffic, or even more with a careful selection of >> hardware and even more careful tuning, and you can load-balance between >> them, but it's much more effort and it isn't robust enough (which is the >> reason why they all migrate to better solutions later). >> >> >> BTW, I agree that you should speak in PPS and bandwidth instead of >> number of users, those are much better as a metric. >> >> >>> This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the >>> typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - >>> as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any >>> work-arounds which may work. >> >> Try to pair a user IP with a public IP, that way you'll workaround most >> websites/games/applications expecting publicly visible user IP to be the >> same for all connections. >> >> Start with selected few active customers, check how much connections >> they use with different NAT settings. Double/triple that. Then do the >> math of how many ports/IPs you need per X users, don't just guess it. >> Then try to limit it and see if anything breaks. >> >> By working with them you can also workaround some of the problems you >> didn't think about before. Seriously. Fix it before you roll it out. >> >> What anyone implementing CGN should expect is complaints from users for >> any number of reasons, like their IPSEC or L2TP tunnel stopped working, >> or some application behaves strangely and so on. Prepare your >> techsupport for that. >> >>> This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 >>> months)... it is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and >>> once it reaches that point then funds will be freed up to roll out a >>> more robust, carrier-grade and long term solution (which will include >>> v6). So no criticism on not doing v6 straight up please. >> >> Heh. Nothing lasts longer than temporary solutions. You should implement >> it like you're going to live it for years (probably true) or you'll >> create yourself a huge PITA very soon. >> >> >> >> From t at heckman.io Tue Jul 1 00:33:52 2014 From: t at heckman.io (Tim Heckman) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:33:52 -0700 Subject: Erroneous Leap Second Introduced at 2014-06-30 23:59:59 UTC Message-ID: Hey Everyone, I just was alerted to one of the systems I managed having a time skew greater than 100ms from NTP sources. Upon further investigation it seemed that the time was off by almost exactly 1 second. Looking back over our NTP monitoring, it would appear that this system had a large time adjust at approximately 00:00 UTC: - http://puu.sh/9Rs6O/a514ad7c97.png (times are in Pacific in these graphs, sorry about that) A few of our systems did alert early this morning, indicating they were going to be receiving a leap second today. However, I was unable to determine the exact cause for NTP believing a leap second should be added. And after some time a few of the systems were no longer indicating that a leap second would be introduced. This specific system is hosted in AWS US-WEST-2C and uses the 0.amazon.pool.ntp.org pool. Has anyone else seen any erroneous leap seconds being added to their system? Cheers! -Tim Heckman From msa at latt.net Tue Jul 1 02:27:27 2014 From: msa at latt.net (Majdi S. Abbas) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:27:27 -0400 Subject: Erroneous Leap Second Introduced at 2014-06-30 23:59:59 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:33:52PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > I just was alerted to one of the systems I managed having a time skew > greater than 100ms from NTP sources. Upon further investigation it > seemed that the time was off by almost exactly 1 second. > > Looking back over our NTP monitoring, it would appear that this system > had a large time adjust at approximately 00:00 UTC: Okay. Do you have any logging configured (peerstats, etc?) for ntpd? > A few of our systems did alert early this morning, indicating they > were going to be receiving a leap second today. However, I was unable > to determine the exact cause for NTP believing a leap second should be > added. And after some time a few of the systems were no longer > indicating that a leap second would be introduced. This can happen if a server is either passing along a leap notification that it received, or is configured to use a leapseconds file that is incorrect. > This specific system is hosted in AWS US-WEST-2C and uses the > 0.amazon.pool.ntp.org pool. 0 is just one server in the pool (whichever you draw by rotation); is this the only server you have configured? --msa From rdobbins at arbor.net Tue Jul 1 06:33:42 2014 From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:33:42 +0700 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: References: <53B105B5.10908@direcpath.com> <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> <004701cf9449$1eebd850$5cc388f0$@wicks.co.nz> <81415AF7-4DC7-4A91-9D6E-4A596C4F9B73@arbor.net> Message-ID: <7DB9C4E0-4649-488C-850F-B753D2E4DD51@arbor.net> On Jul 1, 2014, at 7:03 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Roland, what methods are the easiest/cheapest way to deal with this? Ensure you have visibility into your traffic southbound of the NAT - flow telemetry generally works best for this, and there are plenty of open-source solutions around which allow folks to get up and running quickly. Then deploy either S/RTBH or flowspec on the aggregation routers southbound of the NAT. This makes is easy to squelch compromised/abusive hosts. It might also be worth considering sticking some Web proxies (transparent ones clustered via WCCPv2, if available) southbound of the NAT, as well; while the bandwidth savings may be a wash due to dynamic content, SSL, etc. (all highly variable based upon user behavior), TCP sessions for Web requests from hosts southbound of the NAT will terminate on the proxies, which provide a good point to perform filtering on an as-needed basis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön From rdobbins at arbor.net Tue Jul 1 06:33:42 2014 From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:33:42 +0700 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: References: <53B105B5.10908@direcpath.com> <4753D63B-02DE-4F97-96EC-172C5C5C9C0E@arbor.net> <004701cf9449$1eebd850$5cc388f0$@wicks.co.nz> <81415AF7-4DC7-4A91-9D6E-4A596C4F9B73@arbor.net> Message-ID: <7DB9C4E0-4649-488C-850F-B753D2E4DD51@arbor.net> On Jul 1, 2014, at 7:03 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Roland, what methods are the easiest/cheapest way to deal with this? Ensure you have visibility into your traffic southbound of the NAT - flow telemetry generally works best for this, and there are plenty of open-source solutions around which allow folks to get up and running quickly. Then deploy either S/RTBH or flowspec on the aggregation routers southbound of the NAT. This makes is easy to squelch compromised/abusive hosts. It might also be worth considering sticking some Web proxies (transparent ones clustered via WCCPv2, if available) southbound of the NAT, as well; while the bandwidth savings may be a wash due to dynamic content, SSL, etc. (all highly variable based upon user behavior), TCP sessions for Web requests from hosts southbound of the NAT will terminate on the proxies, which provide a good point to perform filtering on an as-needed basis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön From daniel.crompton at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 10:52:11 2014 From: daniel.crompton at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Dani=C3=ABl_W=2E_Crompton?=) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:52:11 +0200 Subject: Erroneous Leap Second Introduced at 2014-06-30 23:59:59 UTC In-Reply-To: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> References: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: That's strange as I remember reading this yesterday: NO leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2014. http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat D. Oplerno is built upon empowering faculty and students -- Daniël W. Crompton http://specialbrands.net/ On 1 July 2014 04:27, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:33:52PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > > I just was alerted to one of the systems I managed having a time skew > > greater than 100ms from NTP sources. Upon further investigation it > > seemed that the time was off by almost exactly 1 second. > > > > Looking back over our NTP monitoring, it would appear that this system > > had a large time adjust at approximately 00:00 UTC: > > Okay. Do you have any logging configured (peerstats, etc?) for > ntpd? > > > A few of our systems did alert early this morning, indicating they > > were going to be receiving a leap second today. However, I was unable > > to determine the exact cause for NTP believing a leap second should be > > added. And after some time a few of the systems were no longer > > indicating that a leap second would be introduced. > > This can happen if a server is either passing along a leap > notification that it received, or is configured to use a leapseconds > file that is incorrect. > > > This specific system is hosted in AWS US-WEST-2C and uses the > > 0.amazon.pool.ntp.org pool. > > 0 is just one server in the pool (whichever you draw by > rotation); is this the only server you have configured? > > --msa > From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 19:13:32 2014 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:43:32 -0430 Subject: Intraway Contact Message-ID: <53B3085C.4080504@gmail.com> Hi there, Is there anyone from Intraway on here? I would appreciate it if anyone on, or off-list can provide any contact details Thanks, Alejandro Acosta, From t at heckman.io Tue Jul 1 19:20:12 2014 From: t at heckman.io (Tim Heckman) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:20:12 -0700 Subject: Erroneous Leap Second Introduced at 2014-06-30 23:59:59 UTC In-Reply-To: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> References: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:33:52PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: >> I just was alerted to one of the systems I managed having a time skew >> greater than 100ms from NTP sources. Upon further investigation it >> seemed that the time was off by almost exactly 1 second. >> >> Looking back over our NTP monitoring, it would appear that this system >> had a large time adjust at approximately 00:00 UTC: > > Okay. Do you have any logging configured (peerstats, etc?) for > ntpd? Our systems all have loopstats and peerstats logging enabled. I have those log files available if interested. However, when I searched over the files I wasn't able to find anything that seemed to indicate this was the peer who told the system to introduce a leap second. That said, I might just not know what to look for in the logs. >> A few of our systems did alert early this morning, indicating they >> were going to be receiving a leap second today. However, I was unable >> to determine the exact cause for NTP believing a leap second should be >> added. And after some time a few of the systems were no longer >> indicating that a leap second would be introduced. > > This can happen if a server is either passing along a leap > notification that it received, or is configured to use a leapseconds > file that is incorrect. Correct, I was hoping to determine which peer it was so I can reach out to them to make sure this doesn't bleed in to the pool at the end of the year. I was also more-or-less curious how wide-spread of an issue this was, but I'm starting to think I may have been the only person to catch it in the act. :) >> This specific system is hosted in AWS US-WEST-2C and uses the >> 0.amazon.pool.ntp.org pool. > > 0 is just one server in the pool (whichever you draw by > rotation); is this the only server you have configured? We use 0.amazon.pool.ntp.org, 1.amazon.pool.ntp.org, and 2.amazon.pool.ntp.org. As with the other widely-used pool hostnames, each of these is a round-robin DNS entry with 4 hosts and a TTL of 150s. > --msa Thank you for getting back to me. Cheers! -Tim From jacques at siberia.co.za Tue Jul 1 19:21:22 2014 From: jacques at siberia.co.za (Jacques Marneweck) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:21:22 +0200 Subject: Responsive person on AOL postmasters team Message-ID: <53B30A32.5020703@siberia.co.za> Hi, Can someone on the AOL postmasters team contact me offlist. Having some mail delivery issues from customers and don't seem to be getting anywhere via the normal postmasters contact at getting the issue resolved. Regards --jm From msa at latt.net Tue Jul 1 19:35:42 2014 From: msa at latt.net (Majdi S. Abbas) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 15:35:42 -0400 Subject: Erroneous Leap Second Introduced at 2014-06-30 23:59:59 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <20140701193542.GA30902@puck.nether.net> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 12:20:12PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > Our systems all have loopstats and peerstats logging enabled. I have > those log files available if interested. However, when I searched over > the files I wasn't able to find anything that seemed to indicate this > was the peer who told the system to introduce a leap second. That > said, I might just not know what to look for in the logs. Look at the status word in peerstats; if the high bit is set, that's your huckleberry. See: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/decode.html > Correct, I was hoping to determine which peer it was so I can reach > out to them to make sure this doesn't bleed in to the pool at the end > of the year. I was also more-or-less curious how wide-spread of an > issue this was, but I'm starting to think I may have been the only > person to catch it in the act. :) You might want to upgrade to current 4.2.7 development code, wherein a majority rule is used to qualify the leap indicator. Cheers, --msa From t at heckman.io Wed Jul 2 02:19:37 2014 From: t at heckman.io (Tim Heckman) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 19:19:37 -0700 Subject: Erroneous Leap Second Introduced at 2014-06-30 23:59:59 UTC In-Reply-To: <20140701193542.GA30902@puck.nether.net> References: <20140701022727.GA31699@puck.nether.net> <20140701193542.GA30902@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 12:20:12PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: >> Our systems all have loopstats and peerstats logging enabled. I have >> those log files available if interested. However, when I searched over >> the files I wasn't able to find anything that seemed to indicate this >> was the peer who told the system to introduce a leap second. That >> said, I might just not know what to look for in the logs. > > Look at the status word in peerstats; if the high bit is > set, that's your huckleberry. > > See: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/decode.html I've taken a look at all of the peerstats available for this host, and surprisingly none of them are showing code 09 (leap_armed). I'm also fairly certain that I know when some of my systems armed the leap second (within a 60-120s window) based on our monitoring. Around those times everything seems normal according to peerstats. Looking at I am running Ubuntu 10.04 on this box, which is ntp v4.2.4p8. I'll need to looking to see if the printing of this flag was added later; otherwise, it would seem some of my systems picked up a phantom leap second from an unknown source with one of them actually executing it. Thanks for the decoder ring. My Google-fu wasn't hitting the right keywords. >> Correct, I was hoping to determine which peer it was so I can reach >> out to them to make sure this doesn't bleed in to the pool at the end >> of the year. I was also more-or-less curious how wide-spread of an >> issue this was, but I'm starting to think I may have been the only >> person to catch it in the act. :) > > You might want to upgrade to current 4.2.7 development code, > wherein a majority rule is used to qualify the leap indicator. We're going to be doing some system refreshes coming soon, so that may be something we'll need to look at. I didn't realize this was happening as part of the 4.2.7 development branch. Definitely an interesting feature, especially after this. :p > Cheers, > > --msa Thanks again, Majdi. Cheers! -Tim From lucab at debian.org Tue Jul 1 09:39:08 2014 From: lucab at debian.org (Luca BRUNO) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:39:08 +0200 Subject: Heads-up on security aspects of looking-glass deployments Message-ID: <20140701113908.62825eec@xantho> Hi all, we recently performed a broad-scope security review of some commonly deployed open-source looking-glass software, and we discovered several bugs and misconfigurations which you may want to check if concerning your infrastructure. Firstly, affected software and issues are as follow: * mrlg4php - CVE-2014-3927: Remote command injection to router's console via "argument" parameter * cougar-lg - CVE-2014-3926: XSS in via "addr" parameter - CVE-2014-3928: Unsafe configuration file path/ACL - CVE-2014-3929: Unsafe SSH keypairs path in default config * cistron-lg - CVE-2014-3930: Unsafe configuration file path/ACL * mrlg - CVE-2014-3931: Remote memory corruption in fastping (SUID binary) Some of these bugs (in particular 3927, 3928, 3929, 3930) may directly or indirectly result in exposed IPs, usernames, passwords, SSH private keys and remote command injection to router's console. Depending on the specific infrastructure setup, this may translate into an attacker having live access to routers CLI. During the study, we detected around 45 incidents somehow related to above bugs, which we have already reported to concerned NOC contacts, whois contacts and national FSIRTs for further handling. Advanced private disclosure to concerned entities was performed on 06/02. For specific details, full advisories are available for each issue: * http://www.s3.eurecom.fr/cve/CVE-2014-3926.txt * http://www.s3.eurecom.fr/cve/CVE-2014-3927.txt * http://www.s3.eurecom.fr/cve/CVE-2014-3928.txt * http://www.s3.eurecom.fr/cve/CVE-2014-3929.txt * http://www.s3.eurecom.fr/cve/CVE-2014-3930.txt * http://www.s3.eurecom.fr/cve/CVE-2014-3931.txt Apart from one case where the author is unreachable and one that as been marked as "wontfix", all the issues have been fixed by software authors. Incidents related to misconfigurations have been handled on a case-by-case basis, and no disclosure-delaying cases exist at this time (to the best of our knowledge). If you have any specific questions on the topic, feel free to ask either here on NANOG or by reaching me in private. Cheers, Luca & Mariano -- .''`. | ~<[ Luca BRUNO ~ (kaeso) ]>~ : :' : | Email: lucab (AT) debian.org ~ Debian Developer `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 0x3BFB9FB3 ~ Free Software supporter `- | HAM-radio callsign: IZ1WGT ~ Networking sorcerer From robachevsky at isoc.org Wed Jul 2 14:23:38 2014 From: robachevsky at isoc.org (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:23:38 +0200 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto Message-ID: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> Colleagues, A small group of network operators has been working on defining a minimal, but feasible package of recommended measures that, if deployed on a wide scale, could result in visible improvements to the security and resilience of the global routing system. Many operators are ahead of the curve and already implement much more than the proposed recommendations. But we believe that gathering support for these relatively small steps could pave the road to more significant actions on a global scale. We called this set of recommendations a Routing Resilience Manifesto – you can find a draft document here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/. This initial version of the Manifesto was drafted by a small group, but we need a wider community review, your feedback, and, ultimately, your support to make this initiative fly. It was already presented at several venues, like RIPE and NANOG, and now we open it for a more detailed review. Please note that this is very much a work in progress. Please review the document and provide your feedback and text suggestions online or via routingmanifesto at isoc.org by 31 August 2014. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky Internet Society From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 2 16:20:25 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:20:25 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote: > We called this set of recommendations a Routing Resilience Manifesto – > you can find a draft document here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/. Howdy, First recommendation: ditch the word "manifesto." Manifesto is loaded with so many negative connotations that using it in a document intended to be taken seriously by professionals is unwise... particularly if those professionals will have to beg money from CEOs to implement any of the proposals. While less catchy, something along the lines of "Minimum Professional Routing Standards for Lawfully Operated Networks" is more apt to secure the needed cooperation, funding and vendor support. Seriously, manifesto? What's next, some routing unabombers? Oh wait, I guess we already have those, don't we? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Wed Jul 2 17:05:11 2014 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:05:11 +0000 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> On the other hand, people will notice & read a Œmanifesto¹. The industry has preached things like BCP38 for many years with not great progress... On 7/2/14, 12:20 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Andrei Robachevsky ><robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote: >> We called this set of recommendations a Routing Resilience Manifesto ­ >> you can find a draft document here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/. > >Howdy, > >First recommendation: ditch the word "manifesto." Manifesto is loaded >with so many negative connotations that using it in a document >intended to be taken seriously by professionals is unwise... >particularly if those professionals will have to beg money from CEOs >to implement any of the proposals. > >While less catchy, something along the lines of "Minimum Professional >Routing Standards for Lawfully Operated Networks" is more apt to >secure the needed cooperation, funding and vendor support. > > >Seriously, manifesto? What's next, some routing unabombers? Oh wait, I >guess we already have those, don't we? > >Regards, >Bill Herrin > > >-- >William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> >Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 2 17:46:20 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:46:20 -0500 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <MUMe1o00r1cZc5601UMg22> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <MUMe1o00r1cZc5601UMg22> Message-ID: <53B4456C.3000404@cox.net> On 7/2/2014 11:20 AM, William Herrin wrote: > Seriously, manifesto? What's next, some routing unabombers? Oh wait, I > guess we already have those, don't we? Seriously. And it is actually a deeper wound than that. The whole document (or as much of it as I was willing to read, anyway) is worded like it had been copied out of the Ernesto Guevara Handbook. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 2 17:52:26 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:52:26 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > On the other hand, people will notice & read a Œmanifesto¹. The industry > has preached things like BCP38 for many years with not great progress... Howdy, Best practices just means you're not quite the best -- often a worthy trade for controlling cost, particularly if your customers won't notice. Besides, it's best -current- practices which means it'll probably change tomorrow and you won't have to do all that hard work after all. And if not tomorrow then surely the next day. People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 2 18:00:31 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:00:31 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CD0E194-0CAE-41F7-805B-A83E7A8EF172@puck.nether.net> On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:52 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't > pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will > notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run? No, but how else do you suggest we work to address these problems? There are side-effects of every tradeoff, including today NTP is unusable on some networks due to lack of BCP-38. Is the internet to be eventually defined as a few select ports and protocol numbers? While a naked run isn't my first choice, I am interested in practical solutions and responses. I've privately and publicly documented some of my challenges securing my networks with BCP-38. While perhaps not obviously related there is also the issue of BGP filtering and other things that create a nexus of interrelated items. How can we build a culture of cooperation around these topics to raise the bar? It isn't the most chronic or sexy thing to address, but the bar still needs to be raised before it becomes the latest in a list of things we all knew about and took no action on. - Jared From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 2 18:14:06 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:14:06 -0500 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <MW1T1o00H1cZc5601W1WaR> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> <MW1T1o00H1cZc5601W1WaR> Message-ID: <53B44BEE.8010009@cox.net> On 7/2/2014 1:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:52 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > >> People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't >> pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will >> notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run? > > No, but how else do you suggest we work to address these problems? I am no longer active in the field, but back in the day, the ways of successfully selling stuff to management involved some mix of: It will improve sales. It will reduce costs. It will allow you to do something you want to do. It will keep you out of court and jail. No variation "It is the right thing to do" ever worked unless management thought of it. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 2 18:22:16 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:22:16 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <4CD0E194-0CAE-41F7-805B-A83E7A8EF172@puck.nether.net> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> <4CD0E194-0CAE-41F7-805B-A83E7A8EF172@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXKj6WS2WmSrDzUQkjTHOEsyc7-gVp9Jur6rtmdAbKyCA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > No, but how else do you suggest we work to address these problems? > While a naked run isn't my first choice, I am interested in practical solutions > and responses. I've privately and publicly documented some of my challenges > securing my networks with BCP-38. While perhaps not obviously related there > is also the issue of BGP filtering and other things that create a nexus of > interrelated items. Hi Jared, Have you ever known any problem to be solved with stronger awareness of the rules of whack-a-mole? The first level of the problem is technical: there's no efficient protocol for propagating knowledge about acceptable sources from each link from router to router and not nearly enough TCAM in shipping models to implement such a protocol if it existed. Every current anti-spoofing approach either involves slow and mistake-prone manual effort or is tied to trivial single-homed routing cases so often implemented by inept junior staff at third-tier networks. The second level of the problem is financial -- some customers will pay you to avoid being victims of the problem but none will pay you to avoid being facilitators. Protocols, software and TCAMs are expensive. Far more expensive than the abject lack of penalties, lawsuits, shutdowns and public shaming which result from the discovery of leaky origins. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Wed Jul 2 18:25:02 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 14:25:02 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:52:26 -0400." <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <11268.1404325502@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:52:26 -0400, William Herrin said: > People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't > pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will > notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run? Ew. That's a mental image I didn't need. Pass me the mind bleach. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140702/236b4405/attachment.pgp> From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 2 18:34:15 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:34:15 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXKj6WS2WmSrDzUQkjTHOEsyc7-gVp9Jur6rtmdAbKyCA@mail.gmail.com> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> <4CD0E194-0CAE-41F7-805B-A83E7A8EF172@puck.nether.net> <CAP-guGXKj6WS2WmSrDzUQkjTHOEsyc7-gVp9Jur6rtmdAbKyCA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ABD04F07-3D3A-4214-9CBC-0DA4BFB6D62E@puck.nether.net> On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:22 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: >> No, but how else do you suggest we work to address these problems? >> While a naked run isn't my first choice, I am interested in practical solutions >> and responses. I've privately and publicly documented some of my challenges >> securing my networks with BCP-38. While perhaps not obviously related there >> is also the issue of BGP filtering and other things that create a nexus of >> interrelated items. > > Hi Jared, > > Have you ever known any problem to be solved with stronger awareness > of the rules of whack-a-mole? > > The first level of the problem is technical: there's no efficient > protocol for propagating knowledge about acceptable sources from each > link from router to router and not nearly enough TCAM in shipping > models to implement such a protocol if it existed. Every current > anti-spoofing approach either involves slow and mistake-prone manual > effort or is tied to trivial single-homed routing cases so often > implemented by inept junior staff at third-tier networks. I can't solve the inept staff problem either, this is a problem of people being paid to do something they're unqualified to do. They can muddle through it to a workable solution and folks say "great, it's fixed don't touch it" and move on. As a community we need to find these cases and educate those which haven't learned that proxy-arp, ip redirects (and ipv6 redirects) are bad and cause more damage than good. Perhaps this "manifesto" is the wrong way, but it's at least an attempt to enumerate some set of them and make it public to educate folks. I'd love to see all the members of this list be able to take one item and strive for it this year as a goal. > The second level of the problem is financial -- some customers will > pay you to avoid being victims of the problem but none will pay you to > avoid being facilitators. Protocols, software and TCAMs are expensive. > Far more expensive than the abject lack of penalties, lawsuits, > shutdowns and public shaming which result from the discovery of leaky > origins. Sure. I have been trying to avoid mentioning this, but there's at least one case this week where someone substituted their own moral standing in place of a party they feel wasn't doing the right thing. The fate of that event is still not determined. (I'm not trying to fork the discussion to be related, but it's certainly a threat that I'm paying close attention to). - Jared From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 2 18:38:11 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:38:11 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <53B44BEE.8010009@cox.net> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> <MW1T1o00H1cZc5601W1WaR> <53B44BEE.8010009@cox.net> Message-ID: <A6E3F52A-D8F1-474D-A3AF-E62D225CC0AF@puck.nether.net> On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> wrote: > On 7/2/2014 1:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> >> On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:52 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >> >>> People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't >>> pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will >>> notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run? >> >> No, but how else do you suggest we work to address these problems? > > I am no longer active in the field, but back in the day, the ways of successfully selling stuff to management involved some mix of: > > It will improve sales. > It will reduce costs. > It will allow you to do something you want to do. > It will keep you out of court and jail. > > No variation "It is the right thing to do" ever worked unless management thought of it. For $dayjob, automation (marketing term: SDN) has let us attain all of the above, including the ability to roll out fixes promptly and predictably. How we can encourage other actors to raise the bar is what I'm hoping occurs. Similar to Gert and his "Have you turned on IPv6 on something today" quote, did you contribute to the stability and security of the internet today? Sometimes it's tiny incremental work, but over time it's additive to make things better. Toyota has a concept of continual improvement in their processes, how can we improve? - Jared From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 2 19:08:28 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:08:28 -0400 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <A6E3F52A-D8F1-474D-A3AF-E62D225CC0AF@puck.nether.net> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> <53B44BEE.8010009@cox.net> <A6E3F52A-D8F1-474D-A3AF-E62D225CC0AF@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVighpkyOcB4K_S1aWQf1amF_5Xa+uimzHr0aK_Ls4rDg@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > how can we improve? Hi Jared, Ask folks in the IRTF to hash out architectures for efficiently propagating permitted source information. The manual processes we have today don't cut it. Ask folks in the IETF and build a protocol or two around those architectures. And lobby lawmakers about the vast economic and national security implications of the corporate blind-eye to criminal behavior that the protocol solves. Not necessarily in that order. Banks with controls inadequate to obstruct money laundering face severe consequences. So do owners of swimming pools who make no effort to prevent child drownings. The former is criminal while the latter facilitates a huge torts under the attractive nuisance doctrine. Why should network operators with inadequate controls to obstruct source address fraud get a completely free pass? Surely the impact has become sufficiently severe! Alternately, it will be my pleasure to cheer everyone on as they achieve ever higher scores at whack-a-mole. With only the occasional snark. I promise. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From goemon at anime.net Wed Jul 2 20:28:19 2014 From: goemon at anime.net (goemon at anime.net) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <53B44BEE.8010009@cox.net> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAP-guGXCobNzK-d+H2Ee8ZUQTFzXEH6fZ5gSCuQWsvg2Z4Y4zw@mail.gmail.com> <CFD9B3F2.D852B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CAP-guGWPHyNeyHa9rrk5S5SMDndCj7+ACRHXbLeeKOr9zuayKA@mail.gmail.com> <MW1T1o00H1cZc5601W1WaR> <53B44BEE.8010009@cox.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407021324500.26490@sasami.anime.net> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 7/2/2014 1:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:52 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>> People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't >>> pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will >>> notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run? >> No, but how else do you suggest we work to address these problems? > I am no longer active in the field, but back in the day, the ways of > successfully selling stuff to management involved some mix of: > > It will improve sales. > It will reduce costs. > It will allow you to do something you want to do. > It will keep you out of court and jail. > > No variation "It is the right thing to do" ever worked unless management > thought of it. Things like DNSBLs could be used to encourage correct behavior. Why is your network performance shit? Because you allow your customers to spew sewage and you ended up on a blacklist, everyone now puts all your traffic in scavenger queue. -Dan From mpetach at netflight.com Wed Jul 2 21:23:47 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:23:47 -0700 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oVmWA9peRSwPae9z_nvUBJWnYWwxhWqFjYxiLvv_aKTA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote: > Colleagues, > > A small group of network operators has been working on defining a > minimal, but feasible package of recommended measures that, if deployed > on a wide scale, could result in visible improvements to the security > and resilience of the global routing system. > > Many operators are ahead of the curve and already implement much more > than the proposed recommendations. But we believe that gathering support > for these relatively small steps could pave the road to more significant > actions on a global scale. > > We called this set of recommendations a Routing Resilience Manifesto – > you can find a draft document here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/. > > This initial version of the Manifesto was drafted by a small group, but > we need a wider community review, your feedback, and, ultimately, your > support to make this initiative fly. It was already presented at several > venues, like RIPE and NANOG, and now we open it for a more detailed > review. Please note that this is very much a work in progress. > > Please review the document and provide your feedback and text > suggestions online or via routingmanifesto at isoc.org by 31 August 2014. > > Regards, > > Andrei Robachevsky > Internet Society > > Well, that was easy. Already have 1 and 2 squared away. Only challenging one left is #3. Is the INOC-DBA project still around? Would love to sign up for that and be able to check off #3 as well. Once that's done, all that's left is the naked routing run. With the way temperatures have been, I'm all in favour of that--pick a date, let's make it happen! Matt From surfer at mauigateway.com Wed Jul 2 21:29:47 2014 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:29:47 -0700 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto Message-ID: <20140702142947.B812A6CD@m0005309.ppops.net> --- mpetach at netflight.com wrote: From: Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> Once that's done, all that's left is the naked routing run. With the way temperatures have been, I'm all in favour of that--pick a date, let's make it happen! --------------------------------------------------------- Nooooooo!!!! A buncha hefty NANOGers running naked? Noooo!!!! Like Valdis said, where's the mind bleach??? :-) scott From woody at pch.net Wed Jul 2 21:32:55 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:32:55 -0700 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oVmWA9peRSwPae9z_nvUBJWnYWwxhWqFjYxiLvv_aKTA@mail.gmail.com> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <CAEmG1=oVmWA9peRSwPae9z_nvUBJWnYWwxhWqFjYxiLvv_aKTA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6BF6E667-6542-4F90-9A3C-22C6DC0D9960@pch.net> On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > Is the INOC-DBA project still around? Would > love to sign up for that and be able to check off > #3 as well. Yep. We had a bit of a dry spell on funding for it for a while, but we have someone starting full-time on it again in mid-August, and we’ve had some very good volunteers that have tided us over during the times when we didn’t have funded staff for it. And Cisco have, of course, been very generous with continuous support since INOC-DBA was rolled out in 2001. We’re in the process of a web-site overhaul that will include a new INOC-DBA configuration portal, and we’re currently testing out the new DX650 phones. I’m anticipating that a fair bit of the last few years’ development work will actually get rolled out in production over the course of the next year; there was quite a bit backed up behind the lack of full-time staff. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140702/bc819416/attachment.pgp> From yardiel at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 22:48:29 2014 From: yardiel at gmail.com (Yardiel D. Fuentes) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:48:29 -0400 Subject: New BCOPs in Progress In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dtns9BDpVCLr+jnFsaGrNAcR7pzQZFesdu2PfgjeMubMdg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAC1-dtns9BDpVCLr+jnFsaGrNAcR7pzQZFesdu2PfgjeMubMdg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <E62C8F63-8E44-4AA5-8009-D71F1C7DA4B2@gmail.com> OK NANOGers, Some of us got the call to arms from Chris G email below and the NANOG BCOP Committee and now we are interested in generating DoS attack-related Best Common Practices (BCOP) appeal to serve the entire NANOG community. This document, as other BCOP appeals are expected to be as brief as possible and to the point in order to keep it practical and useful. The goal is to generate a set of best practices of what to do before/during/after a DoS/DDoS attack -- including what seems to have worked best and what hasn't. Time dedicated to this effort should extensive and participation can be non-real-time given that it can be done over email with no need for conference calls if desired. DoS and DDoS attacks have been a topic that have captured high interest from NANOGers based on the archived list topics and email threads. So, now is your time to help shape a NANOG BCOP Appeal on this topic. Please contact me off-list if you want participate by either sharing your experience, expertise or opinions towards generating a DoS Attack BCOP. Yardiel Fuentes yardiel at gmail.com twitter: #techguane On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > Hail NANOGers! > > As most of you hopefully know, NANOG now has a BCOP Ad Hoc Committee > and we are pushing forward with new BCOPs! > http://nanog.org/governance/bcop > > We currently have three BCOPs in active development: > > eBGP configuration, shepherd Bill Armstrong > Public Peering Exchange update, shepherd Shawn Hsiao > Ethernet OAM, shepherd Mark Calkins > > All three of these nascent BCOPs will be presented in the BCOP Track > on Monday: http://nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2348 > > We have also collected a list of Appeals (BCOPs that need to be > written): http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals > > If you would like to help out with any of these BCOPs (or others yet > to be identified) please join the BCOP mailing list and reach out to > the shepherd (if applicable of course): > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop > > Our committee is brand new and we are still finding and smoothing > wrinkles, etc. We would love your help in any capacity. As a BCOP > shepherd or SME or just to point out potential pit falls or room for > improvement, with the process, the wiki, a BCOP or anything at all > really. > > This is a bottom-up, community led effort and it will only succeed > with your help - join us in creating what I believe will be a vital > and long-lasting institution! > > Cheers, > ~Chris > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com From jason at apsalar.com Wed Jul 2 17:55:36 2014 From: jason at apsalar.com (jason matthews) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:55:36 -0700 Subject: softlayer network contact Message-ID: <2FCAFEB4-4C35-4944-982E-83C66DCF56E1@apsalar.com> can someone from softlayer/networklayer contact me off list please. thanks, j. Jason Matthews VP of Technical Operations Apsalar, Inc. From david at mailplus.nl Thu Jul 3 07:30:07 2014 From: david at mailplus.nl (David Hofstee) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:30:07 +0200 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> Message-ID: <78C35D6C1A82D243B830523B4193CF5F75BB59678E@SBS1.blinker.local> About #3... I had a little discussion on abuse-wg at RIPE a while ago about keeping records up to date and relevant. See below. Nobody at RIPE cares much at the moment (to actually pick up this subject). Maybe they need a push with a TerexRH400. David Hofstee Deliverability Management MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) ---------------------------------------------------------ctrl-v-------------------------------------------- Hi Frederik, Who has an interest in a clean database? The sloppy Org or Ripe? The answer is Ripe, therefore it should also spend energy [via Ripe Ncc] in (making sure that Orgs are) keeping it clean. Kids do not grow up themselves, it requires an active process. Organisations are not much different. David -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Fredrik Widell [mailto:fredrik at resilans.se] Verzonden: vrijdag 15 maart 2013 10:37 Aan: MailPlus| David Hofstee CC: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Reporting Issues On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, MailPlus| David Hofstee wrote: Well, that is probably more a sign of a sloppy organisation, it is up to the LIR to keep the ripedb up to date, this is not the role of RIPE. You probably dont expect RIPE to keep track of your old DNS-entrys and give you a phone-call if it seems that a customer-name is wrong do you? > Hi Frederik, > > I am such a person (DH3195-RIPE). I entered my email a long time ago. Unlike passwords that expire and accounts that get locked when not used, this vital contact info is never re-validated. We never get mail that says: "Ripe wants to confirm that you are still having Role X in your organisation. Click here to confirm.". A full-inbox bounce could trigger a phone call. Etc. Ripe should charge money for not keeping records up to date. > > In my (ESP) world, an email address that has not been used by the list-owner for over a year is a risk for a spam trap ;-). > > Bye, > > David ---------------------------------------------------------ctrl-v-------------------------------------------- -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Namens Andrei Robachevsky Verzonden: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:24 PM Aan: NANOG Onderwerp: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto Colleagues, A small group of network operators has been working on defining a minimal, but feasible package of recommended measures that, if deployed on a wide scale, could result in visible improvements to the security and resilience of the global routing system. Many operators are ahead of the curve and already implement much more than the proposed recommendations. But we believe that gathering support for these relatively small steps could pave the road to more significant actions on a global scale. We called this set of recommendations a Routing Resilience Manifesto - you can find a draft document here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/. This initial version of the Manifesto was drafted by a small group, but we need a wider community review, your feedback, and, ultimately, your support to make this initiative fly. It was already presented at several venues, like RIPE and NANOG, and now we open it for a more detailed review. Please note that this is very much a work in progress. Please review the document and provide your feedback and text suggestions online or via routingmanifesto at isoc.org by 31 August 2014. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky Internet Society From ops.lists at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 08:31:25 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:01:25 +0530 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <78C35D6C1A82D243B830523B4193CF5F75BB59678E@SBS1.blinker.local> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <78C35D6C1A82D243B830523B4193CF5F75BB59678E@SBS1.blinker.local> Message-ID: <CAArzuouaeDkEYA9efByy5c3hAO3wJrMK9rcj03V6Rb_OhiLc3g@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Hofstee <david at mailplus.nl> wrote: > About #3... I had a little discussion on abuse-wg at RIPE a while ago about keeping records up to date and relevant. See below. > > Nobody at RIPE cares much at the moment (to actually pick up this subject). Maybe they need a push with a TerexRH400. You get a lot of network and DNS types and maybe 1% of them will be concerned with the mechanics of abuse prevention - that's the other group down the hall, and "they are not the internet police". Ah well .. maybe that's better than hamfisted lanham act takedowns of whitehat dynamic dns providers - but those are two extremes. --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com) From Sam at SanDiegoBroadband.com Thu Jul 3 04:19:07 2014 From: Sam at SanDiegoBroadband.com (Sam Norris) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:19:07 -0700 Subject: Peering Latency Message-ID: <043601cf9675$f0ebd0c0$d2c37240$@SanDiegoBroadband.com> Hey all - new to the list but not to the community... Wondering if this is typical when there is too small of a pipe between peering arrangements: >From Level3 to Time Warner ADDRESS STATUS 2 4.69.133.206 4ms 4ms 4ms 3 4.69.153.222 9ms 4ms 4ms 4 4.69.158.78 8ms 4ms 4ms (L3) 5 66.109.9.121 28ms 53ms 29ms (TWC) <------ 6 107.14.19.87 30ms 28ms 28ms 7 66.109.6.213 27ms 28ms 28ms 8 72.129.1.1 32ms 32ms 32ms 9 72.129.1.7 27ms 26ms 25ms 10 67.52.158.145 28ms 29ms 31ms >From TWC to Level3 # ADDRESS RT1 RT2 RT3 STATUS 2 24.43.183.34 5ms 5ms 6ms 3 72.129.1.14 8ms 8ms 8ms 4 72.129.1.2 6ms 8ms 8ms 5 107.14.19.30 7ms 8ms 8ms 6 66.109.6.4 8ms 8ms 8ms 7 107.14.19.86 5ms 5ms 5ms 8 66.109.9.122 34ms 33ms 31ms (TWC) <------ 9 4.69.158.65 31ms 30ms 29ms (L3) 10 4.69.153.221 33ms 33ms 34ms 11 4.69.133.205 32ms 32ms 31ms I am showing, typically at night, a 20-40ms jump when hopping from Level3 to Time Warner and back in Tustin, CA. This does not happen when using Cogent or other blended providers bandwidth. I believe they are probably stuffing too many bits thru the peering there and wondering whats the best way to prove to them both (we pay for both) that they need to fix it. During non-peak traffic times these look normal (sub 10s). Sam From oliverdouglas at programmer.net Thu Jul 3 16:10:30 2014 From: oliverdouglas at programmer.net (Oliver Doug) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 13:10:30 -0300 Subject: GVT Brazil - contact Message-ID: <53B58076.4050100@programmer.net> There are anyone up there from GVT Brazil who are able to contact me inbox? Having some issues to hire a fixed phone number plan to a customer. Cheers, Douglas S. Oliveira Eletel Telecom +55 19 9 8182-8816 +55 19 9 9915-0538 From cb.list6 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 16:52:29 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:52:29 -0700 Subject: Peering Latency In-Reply-To: <043601cf9675$f0ebd0c0$d2c37240$@SanDiegoBroadband.com> References: <043601cf9675$f0ebd0c0$d2c37240$@SanDiegoBroadband.com> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRXAWh4tkqChfNUXL-WU4-MBdKQvA0k945_Ox-3D8XW_g@mail.gmail.com> On Jul 3, 2014 9:47 AM, "Sam Norris" <Sam at sandiegobroadband.com> wrote: > > Hey all - new to the list but not to the community... > > Wondering if this is typical when there is too small of a pipe between peering > arrangements: > > From Level3 to Time Warner > > ADDRESS STATUS > 2 4.69.133.206 4ms 4ms 4ms > 3 4.69.153.222 9ms 4ms 4ms > 4 4.69.158.78 8ms 4ms 4ms (L3) > 5 66.109.9.121 28ms 53ms 29ms (TWC) <------ > 6 107.14.19.87 30ms 28ms 28ms > 7 66.109.6.213 27ms 28ms 28ms > 8 72.129.1.1 32ms 32ms 32ms > 9 72.129.1.7 27ms 26ms 25ms > 10 67.52.158.145 28ms 29ms 31ms > > From TWC to Level3 > > # ADDRESS RT1 RT2 RT3 STATUS > > 2 24.43.183.34 5ms 5ms 6ms > 3 72.129.1.14 8ms 8ms 8ms > > 4 72.129.1.2 6ms 8ms 8ms > > 5 107.14.19.30 7ms 8ms 8ms > > 6 66.109.6.4 8ms 8ms 8ms > > 7 107.14.19.86 5ms 5ms 5ms > > 8 66.109.9.122 34ms 33ms 31ms (TWC) <------ > > 9 4.69.158.65 31ms 30ms 29ms (L3) > 10 4.69.153.221 33ms 33ms 34ms > 11 4.69.133.205 32ms 32ms 31ms > > > I am showing, typically at night, a 20-40ms jump when hopping from Level3 to > Time Warner and back in Tustin, CA. This does not happen when using Cogent or > other blended providers bandwidth. I believe they are probably stuffing too > many bits thru the peering there and wondering whats the best way to prove to > them both (we pay for both) that they need to fix it. > > During non-peak traffic times these look normal (sub 10s). > > Sam > This latency usually means a change in the return path as you cross an AS boundry. The first AS may have a local peering for the best return path while the 2nd AS on the return path has to go to a different region to take the bgp best path From listas at kurtkraut.net Thu Jul 3 18:38:35 2014 From: listas at kurtkraut.net (Kurt Kraut) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:38:35 -0300 Subject: GVT Brazil - contact In-Reply-To: <53B58076.4050100@programmer.net> References: <53B58076.4050100@programmer.net> Message-ID: <CAPbn28kSvmORa6Nek9Cs1M4RJKF+-ipuroe7z2zqa04wmgHNyA@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Based on the phone numbers you provided (+55) you are in Brazil. I'm pretty sure nobody from the telephony departament of a big telco will step up and try to help will. In fact, by the company policies, they are forbidden to provide help outside the company offical channels. Probably your e-mail is motivated as an act of despair. You must do it through the official channels. First, register a formal complaint through the GVT call center. Then pick up the protocol number and present it to ANATEL, the government agency that controls telecommunications. ANATEL cannot act if you don't provide them the protocol number of your complain already registered at GVT. If you complaint is valid and if the company exceeded the max number of days to complete an instalation or the service is malfunctioning ANATEL will give the company more 5 days to fix the problem or the company will be fined. As soon as they get warned by the goverment agency you filed a official complain the'll you contact you really willing to fix the issue to not get the fine. Just follow these instructions: http://www.anatel.gov.br/consumidor/saiba-como-reclamar-de-sua-operadora (pt-br_. Best regards, Kurt Kraut 2014-07-03 13:10 GMT-03:00 Oliver Doug <oliverdouglas at programmer.net>: > There are anyone up there from GVT Brazil who are able to contact me inbox? > Having some issues to hire a fixed phone number plan to a customer. > > Cheers, > > Douglas S. Oliveira > Eletel Telecom > +55 19 9 8182-8816 > +55 19 9 9915-0538 > > From LarrySheldon at cox.net Thu Jul 3 20:27:17 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 15:27:17 -0500 Subject: Feedback Requested: Routing Resilience Manifesto In-Reply-To: <MkYF1o0071cZc5601kYGTv> References: <53B415EA.1000809@isoc.org> <78C35D6C1A82D243B830523B4193CF5F75BB59678E@SBS1.blinker.local> <MkYF1o0071cZc5601kYGTv> Message-ID: <53B5BCA5.8070908@cox.net> On 7/3/2014 3:31 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Hofstee <david at mailplus.nl> > wrote: >> About #3... I had a little discussion on abuse-wg at RIPE a while ago >> about keeping records up to date and relevant. See below. >> >> Nobody at RIPE cares much at the moment (to actually pick up this >> subject). Maybe they need a push with a TerexRH400. > > You get a lot of network and DNS types and maybe 1% of them will be > concerned with the mechanics of abuse prevention - that's the other > group down the hall, and "they are not the internet police". Which, I maintain,, is why the "manifesto" needs to be recast for Management, because it is Management that is supposed to define mission goals and job assignments, which might very well involve operation as network police for the local piece of The Internet (which does in fact extend to the end devices in your shop). Ah > well .. maybe that's better than hamfisted lanham act takedowns of > whitehat dynamic dns providers - but those are two extremes. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From mmata at intercom.com.sv Thu Jul 3 21:32:53 2014 From: mmata at intercom.com.sv (Miguel Mata) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 15:32:53 -0600 Subject: cant reach beyond 129.250.x.y Message-ID: <53B5CC05.22000.2EBC53FE@mmata.intercom.com.sv> Hi guys and gals, somehow it seems that just part of our network (a /24) can't reach beyond "NTT America, Inc." We seem to stop on 129.250.193.186. Somebody from NTT can contact me off list please. -- Miguel Mata El Salvador CTO Comunicaciones IBW El Salvador tel.: ++(503) 2278-5068 fax: ++(503) 2207-1310 mmata at ibw.com "La confianza es la mejor conexion" From jared at puck.nether.net Thu Jul 3 22:10:19 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:10:19 -0400 Subject: cant reach beyond 129.250.x.y In-Reply-To: <53B5CC05.22000.2EBC53FE@mmata.intercom.com.sv> References: <53B5CC05.22000.2EBC53FE@mmata.intercom.com.sv> Message-ID: <5BFB8E3B-20C9-4DB1-9222-E5C8CE818839@puck.nether.net> What source ip range? Jared Mauch > On Jul 3, 2014, at 5:32 PM, "Miguel Mata" <mmata at intercom.com.sv> wrote: > > Hi guys and gals, > > somehow it seems that just part of our network (a /24) can't reach beyond "NTT America, Inc." > > We seem to stop on 129.250.193.186. Somebody from NTT can contact me off list please. > > > -- > Miguel Mata > El Salvador CTO > Comunicaciones IBW El Salvador > tel.: ++(503) 2278-5068 > fax: ++(503) 2207-1310 > mmata at ibw.com > > "La confianza es la mejor conexion" > > From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 4 04:26:36 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (Charles N Wyble) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 23:26:36 -0500 Subject: Peering Latency In-Reply-To: <043601cf9675$f0ebd0c0$d2c37240$@SanDiegoBroadband.com> References: <043601cf9675$f0ebd0c0$d2c37240$@SanDiegoBroadband.com> Message-ID: <55e7886b-6397-44f8-8462-14f705f7a531@email.android.com> Is it Friday already? Or is this not a troll email? Its hard to tell. If its not a troll: Put up some smokeping boxes. Graph it for a few nights. Gather details. Send us those. That is far more interesting/(damning?) If its a troll: *grabs popcorn and gets comfortable* . we've not had a good "zomg the pipes, they are teh fullz, woe is Netflix" (and the obligatory cgn/v6/software vs hardware router sub thread divergences). Very nicely struck balance sir! On July 2, 2014 11:19:07 PM CDT, Sam Norris <Sam at SanDiegoBroadband.com> wrote: >Hey all - new to the list but not to the community... > >Wondering if this is typical when there is too small of a pipe between >peering >arrangements: > >From Level3 to Time Warner > > ADDRESS STATUS > 2 4.69.133.206 4ms 4ms 4ms > 3 4.69.153.222 9ms 4ms 4ms > 4 4.69.158.78 8ms 4ms 4ms (L3) > 5 66.109.9.121 28ms 53ms 29ms (TWC) <------ > 6 107.14.19.87 30ms 28ms 28ms > 7 66.109.6.213 27ms 28ms 28ms > 8 72.129.1.1 32ms 32ms 32ms > 9 72.129.1.7 27ms 26ms 25ms > 10 67.52.158.145 28ms 29ms 31ms > >From TWC to Level3 > > # ADDRESS RT1 RT2 RT3 STATUS > >2 24.43.183.34 5ms 5ms 6ms > 3 72.129.1.14 8ms 8ms 8ms > > 4 72.129.1.2 6ms 8ms 8ms > > 5 107.14.19.30 7ms 8ms 8ms > > 6 66.109.6.4 8ms 8ms 8ms > > 7 107.14.19.86 5ms 5ms 5ms > >8 66.109.9.122 34ms 33ms 31ms (TWC) ><------ > > 9 4.69.158.65 31ms 30ms 29ms (L3) >10 4.69.153.221 33ms 33ms 34ms >11 4.69.133.205 32ms 32ms 31ms > > >I am showing, typically at night, a 20-40ms jump when hopping from >Level3 to >Time Warner and back in Tustin, CA. This does not happen when using >Cogent or >other blended providers bandwidth. I believe they are probably >stuffing too >many bits thru the peering there and wondering whats the best way to >prove to >them both (we pay for both) that they need to fix it. > >During non-peak traffic times these look normal (sub 10s). > >Sam > > >!DSPAM:53b5890e239912186872586! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jul 4 18:12:06 2014 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 04:12:06 +1000 (EST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201407041812.s64IC6h7015991@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 05 Jul, 2014 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 502254 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 195258 Deaggregation factor: 2.57 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 247235 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 47199 Prefixes per ASN: 10.64 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 35944 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 16341 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6116 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 170 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 50404) 51 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1849 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 508 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 6958 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5139 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 18049 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 316 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 382 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2705972260 Equivalent to 161 /8s, 73 /16s and 220 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 73.1 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 73.1 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 96.6 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 173541 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 121019 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 35554 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.40 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 124209 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 51554 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4962 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 25.03 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1223 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 885 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1002 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 734532736 Equivalent to 43 /8s, 200 /16s and 20 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 85.8 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-63999, 131072-133631 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 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, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 168910 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 83975 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 170715 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 79779 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16306 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.47 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6104 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1674 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 31 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 129 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1089136416 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 234 /16s and 231 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.6 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 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 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, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 123986 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 62719 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.98 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 128748 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 81353 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17743 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 7.26 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8271 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2883 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 53 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2724 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 658020228 Equivalent to 39 /8s, 56 /16s and 151 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 95.7 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, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-202239 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 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, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 58159 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 10265 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.67 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 65459 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 29748 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2131 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.72 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 532 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 443 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 26 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1244 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 166333952 Equivalent to 9 /8s, 234 /16s and 14 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 99.1 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 262144-263679 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 12025 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2708 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.44 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 12741 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 4464 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 723 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.62 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 211 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 155 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 28 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 40 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 57623040 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 111 /16s and 66 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 57.2 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2965 11591 924 Korea Telecom 17974 2787 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 7545 2301 320 118 TPG Telecom Limited 4755 1865 396 200 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1650 1306 31 National Internet Backbone 9583 1313 103 537 Sify Limited 9498 1286 317 93 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 7552 1243 1098 14 Viettel Corporation 4808 1222 2152 367 CNCGROUP IP network China169 24560 1141 398 190 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 2953 3688 53 BellSouth.net Inc. 22773 2663 2940 139 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2460 1905 302 Windstream Communications Inc 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1720 1712 569 Charter Communications 4323 1642 1074 417 tw telecom holdings, inc. 30036 1486 318 596 Mediacom Communications Corp 701 1442 11187 729 MCI Communications Services, 6983 1381 818 313 ITC^Deltacom 22561 1307 402 233 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 34984 1711 264 274 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 20940 1419 550 1053 Akamai International B.V. 8402 1376 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 31148 1042 45 20 Freenet Ltd. 13188 1031 100 28 TOV "Bank-Inform" 8551 961 370 40 Bezeq International-Ltd 6849 818 356 26 JSC "Ukrtelecom" 6830 772 2335 430 Liberty Global Operations B.V 12479 734 795 57 France Telecom Espana SA 9198 587 346 29 JSC Kazakhtelecom Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3779 2025 102 NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S 10620 2901 469 213 Telmex Colombia S.A. 18881 2071 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 7303 1769 1180 231 Telecom Argentina S.A. 8151 1445 2975 423 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1130 434 61 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 7738 979 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 6147 948 373 28 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 27947 896 130 51 Telconet S.A 26615 869 2325 35 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 36998 1114 240 6 Sudanese Mobile Telephone (ZA 24863 910 280 26 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 6713 672 744 40 Office National des Postes et 8452 590 958 13 TE-AS 24835 306 144 9 Vodafone Data 36992 304 784 27 ETISALAT MISR 3741 250 921 213 Internet Solutions 37054 248 19 6 Data Telecom Service 29571 228 22 18 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 15706 187 32 6 Sudatel (Sudan Telecom Co. Lt Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3779 2025 102 NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S 4766 2965 11591 924 Korea Telecom 6389 2953 3688 53 BellSouth.net Inc. 10620 2901 469 213 Telmex Colombia S.A. 17974 2787 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 22773 2663 2940 139 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2460 1905 302 Windstream Communications Inc 7545 2301 320 118 TPG Telecom Limited 18881 2071 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 2953 2900 BellSouth.net Inc. 17974 2787 2715 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 10620 2901 2688 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 2663 2524 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 2301 2183 TPG Telecom Limited 7029 2460 2158 Windstream Communications Inc 18881 2071 2049 Global Village Telecom 4766 2965 2041 Korea Telecom 18566 2047 1869 MegaPath Corporation 4755 1865 1665 TATA Communications formerly Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 58152 UNALLOCATED 5.39.200.0/21 12389 OJSC Rostelecom 29525 UNALLOCATED 5.42.136.0/21 41998 NeckarCom Telekommun 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.32.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.96.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 2828 XO Communications 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.160.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.161.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 24.231.96.0/24 21548 MTO Telecom Inc. 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.10.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.11.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.12.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.13.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.14.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.15.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.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 /8:16 /9:13 /10:30 /11:91 /12:259 /13:494 /14:978 /15:1700 /16:12999 /17:6977 /18:11703 /19:24681 /20:35075 /21:37324 /22:53798 /23:47064 /24:266873 /25:823 /26:908 /27:392 /28:13 /29:19 /30:10 /31:1 /32:13 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 2002 2047 MegaPath Corporation 22773 1906 2663 Cox Communications Inc. 6389 1694 2953 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1328 1486 Mediacom Communications Corp 7029 1279 2460 Windstream Communications Inc 11492 1194 1245 CABLE ONE, INC. 6983 1088 1381 ITC^Deltacom 36998 1080 1114 Sudanese Mobile Telephone (ZA 8402 1055 1376 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 34984 1040 1711 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1162 2:658 3:3 4:15 5:1033 6:19 8:716 12:1827 13:4 14:1075 15:15 16:2 17:38 18:21 20:36 23:867 24:1758 27:1768 31:1491 32:43 33:2 34:5 36:136 37:1799 38:973 39:7 40:204 41:3169 42:255 43:88 44:13 45:30 46:2077 47:24 49:731 50:808 52:12 54:47 55:5 56:2 57:29 58:1222 59:611 60:413 61:1574 62:1249 63:1889 64:4372 65:2287 66:4164 67:2088 68:1068 69:3343 70:880 71:441 72:2021 74:2631 75:317 76:407 77:1694 78:850 79:699 80:1307 81:1206 82:767 83:762 84:751 85:1309 86:428 87:1176 88:464 89:1783 90:139 91:5680 92:719 93:1760 94:2011 95:1580 96:529 97:360 98:1089 99:49 100:66 101:859 103:5199 104:34 105:543 106:180 107:569 108:576 109:2038 110:989 111:1343 112:677 113:852 114:807 115:1130 116:1102 117:958 118:1476 119:1400 120:406 121:844 122:2117 123:1404 124:1412 125:1527 128:589 129:339 130:350 131:668 132:418 133:163 134:316 135:74 136:287 137:286 138:364 139:165 140:216 141:384 142:567 143:405 144:502 145:105 146:646 147:477 148:911 149:370 150:245 151:712 152:440 153:221 154:317 155:508 156:355 157:340 158:250 159:905 160:328 161:561 162:1573 163:289 164:697 165:623 166:287 167:643 168:1063 169:125 170:1350 171:185 172:65 173:1529 174:712 175:601 176:1398 177:3237 178:2054 179:745 180:1769 181:1252 182:1569 183:525 184:733 185:1831 186:2878 187:1639 188:2130 189:1488 190:7577 191:593 192:7386 193:5511 194:4038 195:3524 196:1400 197:661 198:5103 199:5519 200:6312 201:2643 202:9097 203:8967 204:4594 205:2667 206:2965 207:2974 208:3957 209:3740 210:3124 211:1727 212:2318 213:2104 214:857 215:87 216:5606 217:1686 218:611 219:332 220:1283 221:626 222:354 223:592 End of report From cidr-report at potaroo.net Fri Jul 4 22:00:00 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 22:00:00 GMT Subject: The Cidr Report Message-ID: <201407042200.s64M00mC035229@wattle.apnic.net> This report has been generated at Fri Jul 4 21:14:00 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 27-06-14 507790 284303 28-06-14 508077 284388 29-06-14 508258 284122 30-06-14 507583 284444 01-07-14 507132 284702 02-07-14 507185 283845 03-07-14 507110 283923 04-07-14 507546 284215 AS Summary 47554 Number of ASes in routing system 19273 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 3779 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS28573: NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 120364544 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 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'). --- 04Jul14 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 508211 284405 223806 44.0% All ASes AS28573 3779 149 3630 96.1% NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR AS6389 2951 80 2871 97.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.,US AS17974 2787 185 2602 93.4% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID AS22773 2658 182 2476 93.2% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US AS7029 2565 435 2130 83.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US AS4766 2967 933 2034 68.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR AS18881 2071 41 2030 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation,US AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR AS7545 2318 995 1323 57.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited,AU AS10620 2901 1621 1280 44.1% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO AS4755 1865 590 1275 68.4% TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN AS4323 1656 433 1223 73.9% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US AS7552 1269 166 1103 86.9% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN AS36998 1114 37 1077 96.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD AS6983 1381 314 1067 77.3% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US AS22561 1307 242 1065 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.,US AS4788 1025 155 870 84.9% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet Service Provider,MY AS4808 1222 413 809 66.2% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN AS7738 979 170 809 82.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR AS24560 1141 334 807 70.7% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services,IN AS6147 948 142 806 85.0% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE AS9829 1650 845 805 48.8% BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN AS18101 942 186 756 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN Reliance Communications Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN AS8151 1454 699 755 51.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX AS26615 869 115 754 86.8% Tim Celular S.A.,BR AS11492 1245 492 753 60.5% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US AS855 774 58 716 92.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Inc.,CA AS701 1432 722 710 49.6% UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US AS9808 1040 331 709 68.2% CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication Co.Ltd.,CN Total 52130 12065 40065 76.9% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 24.231.96.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 27.100.7.0/24 AS56096 41.73.1.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.2.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.10.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.11.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.12.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.13.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.14.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.15.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.16.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.18.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.20.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.21.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.76.48.0/21 AS36969 MTL-AS,MW 41.78.120.0/23 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 - INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE CORPORATION,US 41.78.236.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.237.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.238.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.239.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.189.96.0/20 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.72.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.73.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.74.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.75.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.191.108.0/22 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.108.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.109.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.110.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.111.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.223.208.0/22 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.133.39.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT 62.133.44.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT 64.25.16.0/23 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.20.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.21.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.22.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.27.0/24 AS7046 RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 64.111.160.0/20 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.160.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.161.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.162.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.167.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.169.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.170.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.171.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.172.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.173.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.174.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.175.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 65.75.216.0/23 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.75.217.0/24 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.111.1.0/24 AS32258 SDNGLOBAL - SDN Global,US 66.55.96.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.98.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.99.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.100.0/22 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.102.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.104.0/21 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.180.64.0/21 AS32558 ZEUTER - Zeuter Development Corporation,CA 66.187.240.0/20 AS14552 ACS-SOUTHEASTDATACENTER - Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,US 66.205.224.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 66.251.128.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.133.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.134.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.136.0/21 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.140.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.141.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.142.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A.,IT 72.19.0.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 74.112.100.0/22 AS16764 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.113.200.0/23 AS46939 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/22 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.53.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.55.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.115.124.0/23 AS46540 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.118.132.0/22 AS5117 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.212.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.214.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.121.24.0/22 AS36263 FORONA - Forona Technologies, Inc.,US 77.243.80.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.81.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.88.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.91.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.94.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.95.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 80.78.133.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/23 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.135.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.250.32.0/22 AS37106 ODUA-AS,NG 85.202.160.0/20 AS44404 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.24.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.26.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.28.0/22 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.207.8.0/21 AS3292 TDC TDC A/S,DK 91.193.60.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.195.66.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.197.36.0/22 AS43359 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.199.90.0/24 AS44330 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.209.115.0/24 AS31103 KEYWEB-AS Keyweb AG,DE 91.214.65.0/24 AS30822 MAGEAL-AS Private Enterprise Mageal,LT 91.239.157.0/24 AS24958 TBSH The Bunker Secure Hosting Limited,GB 91.245.224.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 91.245.232.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 91.245.240.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 91.245.248.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 93.190.10.0/24 AS47254 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 95.215.140.0/22 AS48949 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 102.2.88.0/22 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.6.108.0/22 AS37986 TULIP Tulip Telecom Ltd.,IN 103.6.228.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.108.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.140.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.141.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.142.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.143.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.17.108.0/23 AS56301 MN-NDC-MN National Data Center building,MN 103.18.76.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.18.80.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK 103.18.81.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK 103.18.92.0/22 AS13269 103.18.92.0/24 AS13269 103.18.94.0/24 AS13269 103.18.248.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.19.0.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.20.100.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.20.101.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.24.152.0/22 AS22552 ESITED - eSited Solutions,US 103.235.110.0/24 AS45879 FCR-AS-AP France cables & radio Wallis & Futuna,WF 103.235.111.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.235.116.0/22 AS9268 OVERTHEWIRE-AS-AP Over The Wire Pty Ltd,AU 103.248.88.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP 103.248.220.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP 110.44.16.0/24 AS13117 110.44.18.0/24 AS13117 110.76.128.0/22 AS13308 ENPL-PROD-AS-AP eintellego Networks Pty Ltd,AU 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 124.158.28.0/22 AS45857 131.0.24.0/22 AS28604 Globo Comunica��o e Participa�oes SA,BR 142.147.62.0/24 AS3958 AIRCANADA - Air Canada,CA 150.242.136.0/22 AS9268 OVERTHEWIRE-AS-AP Over The Wire Pty Ltd,AU 163.47.23.0/24 AS2907 SINET-AS Research Organization of Information and Systems, National Institute of Informatics,JP 166.93.0.0/16 AS23537 CRITIGEN - Micro Source, Inc.,US 172.85.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.87.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.88.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group),CN 176.111.168.0/22 AS50586 MACROSOLUTIONS MacroSolution SRL,RO 176.124.32.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 176.125.224.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 182.237.25.0/24 AS10201 DWL-AS-IN Dishnet Wireless Limited. Broadband Wireless,IN 185.28.180.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 190.3.160.0/21 AS27975 SYNAPSIS COLOMBIA SAS,CO 190.124.252.0/22 AS7303 Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR 192.9.0.0/16 AS11479 BRM-SUN-AS - Sun Microsystems, Inc,US 192.25.10.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.11.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.13.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.14.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.75.23.0/24 AS2579 AS2579 - Alcatel-Lucent,US 192.75.239.0/24 AS23498 CDSI - COGECODATA,CA 192.84.24.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.104.61.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 192.124.252.0/22 AS680 DFN Verein zur Foerderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.,DE 192.131.233.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 192.149.81.0/24 AS14454 PERIMETER-ESECURITY - Perimeter eSecurity,US 192.154.32.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.154.64.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.166.32.0/20 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 192.245.195.0/24 AS7381 SUNGARDRS - SunGard Availability Services LP,US 192.252.252.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 193.9.59.0/24 AS1257 TELE2,SE 193.16.106.0/24 AS31539 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.16.145.0/24 AS31392 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.86.0/24 AS24751 MULTIFI-AS Jakobstadsnejdens Telefon Ab,FI 193.22.224.0/20 AS3322 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.238.0/23 AS62383 LDS-AS Lambrechts Data Services VOF,BE 193.26.213.0/24 AS31641 BYTEL-AS Bytel Ltd,GB 193.28.14.0/24 AS34309 LINK11 Link11 GmbH,DE 193.33.6.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.33.252.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.46.200.0/24 AS34243 WEBAGE Web Age Ltd,GB 193.93.6.0/23 AS35559 SOMEADDRESS Someaddress Networks Ltd,GB 193.111.229.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.149.2.0/23 AS15919 INTERHOST Servicios de Hosting en Internet S.A.,ES 193.160.16.0/22 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.161.157.0/24 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.164.152.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.178.196.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 193.186.193.0/24 AS158 ERI-AS - Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.,US 193.186.199.0/24 AS8437 UTA-AS Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT 193.188.252.0/24 AS8697 JTC-AS8697 Jordan Telecommunications Company,JO 193.200.244.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.201.244.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.245.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.246.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.202.8.0/21 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.202.9.0/24 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.223.103.0/24 AS3248 SIL-AT Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT 193.227.109.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.227.236.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.243.166.0/24 AS44093 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.0.116.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.0.117.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.6.252.0/24 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 194.9.8.0/23 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.9.8.0/24 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.33.11.0/24 AS8943 JUMP Jump Networks Ltd.,GB 194.39.78.0/23 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 194.49.17.0/24 AS13135 CREW-AS Wieske's Crew GmbH,DE 194.60.88.0/21 AS5089 NTL Virgin Media Limited,GB 194.63.152.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.79.36.0/22 AS3257 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA,DE 194.88.6.0/24 AS35093 RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO 194.88.226.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.99.67.0/24 AS9083 CARPENET carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH,DE 194.126.152.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.126.219.0/24 AS34545 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.126.233.0/24 AS31235 SKIWEBCENTER-AS SKIWEBCENTER SARL,FR 194.126.251.0/24 AS50818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.146.35.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.146.36.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.150.214.0/23 AS30880 SPACEDUMP-AS SpaceDump IT AB,SE 194.156.179.0/24 AS3209 VODANET Vodafone GmbH,DE 194.180.25.0/24 AS21358 ATOS-ORIGIN-DE-AS Atos Information Technology GmbH,DE 194.187.24.0/22 AS8856 UKRNET UkrNet Ltd,UA 195.8.48.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.48.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.119.0/24 AS34304 TEENTELECOM Teen Telecom SRL,RO 195.39.252.0/23 AS29004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.42.232.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 195.47.242.0/24 AS9050 RTD ROMTELECOM S.A,RO 195.85.194.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.85.201.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.110.0.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.128.240.0/23 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 195.149.119.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.189.174.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.216.234.0/24 AS31309 NMV-AS New Media Ventures BVBA,BE 195.234.156.0/24 AS25028 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.242.182.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.244.18.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.245.98.0/23 AS48918 GLOBALWAYS GLOBALWAYS AG,DE 196.2.224.0/22 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 196.3.182.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.3.183.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.22.8.0/24 AS27822 Emerging Markets Communications de Argentina S.R.L,AR 196.22.11.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 196.45.0.0/21 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.45.10.0/24 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, Inc.,US 198.74.11.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.13.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.38.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.39.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.40.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.192.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.163.214.0/24 AS21804 ACCESS-SK - Access Communications Co-operative Limited,CA 198.163.215.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.163.216.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 198.176.208.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.209.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.210.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.211.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange Services,HK 198.252.165.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.166.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.167.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.168.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.169.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 199.85.9.0/24 AS852 ASN852 - TELUS Communications Inc.,CA 199.88.52.0/22 AS17018 QTS-SACRAMENTO-1 - Quality Investment Properties Sacramento, LLC,US 199.116.200.0/21 AS22830 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.120.150.0/24 AS30036 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp,US 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 200.1.112.0/24 AS29754 GO2TEL - GO2TEL.COM INC.,US 200.58.248.0/21 AS27849 200.81.48.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.49.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.50.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 202.8.106.0/24 AS9530 SHINSEGAE-AS SHINSEGAE I&C Co., Ltd.,KR 202.21.158.0/23 AS23728 202.21.158.0/24 AS23728 202.21.159.0/24 AS23728 202.53.138.0/24 AS4058 CITICTEL-CPC-AS4058 CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited,HK 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN 202.158.251.0/24 AS9255 CONNECTPLUS-AS Singapore Telecom,SG 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 203.160.48.0/21 AS38008 203.189.116.0/22 AS45606 203.189.116.0/24 AS45606 203.189.117.0/24 AS45606 203.189.118.0/24 AS45606 203.189.119.0/24 AS45606 204.10.88.0/21 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 204.10.94.0/23 AS30097 NUWAVE - NuWave,US 204.15.208.0/22 AS13706 COMPLETEWEBNET - CompleteWeb.Net LLC,US 204.16.96.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.97.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.98.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.99.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.69.144.0/24 AS27283 RJF-INTERNET - Raymond James Financial, Inc.,US 204.106.16.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 204.187.11.0/24 AS51113 ELEKTA-AS Elekta,GB 204.225.173.0/24 AS6407 PRIMUS-AS6407 - Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.,CA 205.159.44.0/24 AS40157 ADESA-CORP-AS - ADESA Corp,US 205.166.231.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 205.211.160.0/24 AS30045 UHN-ASN - University Health Network,CA 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company,US 206.223.224.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 207.2.120.0/21 AS6221 USCYBERSITES - US Cybersites, Inc,US 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc.,US 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc.,US 207.254.128.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.128.0/24 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.136.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 208.66.64.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.65.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.66.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.67.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.67.132.0/22 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 208.68.180.0/22 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.69.192.0/23 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.69.195.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.75.152.0/21 AS32146 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.20.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.21.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.164.0/24 AS22659 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.166.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.78.224.0/22 AS11274 ADHOST - Adhost Internet Advertising, LLC,US 208.83.53.0/24 AS40569 YGOMI-AS - Ygomi LLC,US 208.84.232.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.234.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.237.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.238.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.93.144.0/21 AS30693 SERVERHUB-PHOENIX - Eonix Corporation,US 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 209.193.112.0/20 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications Company, LLC,US 209.209.51.0/24 AS18687 MPOWER-2 - MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,US 209.209.224.0/19 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.248.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.250.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.251.0/24 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.212.63.0/24 AS16467 ASN-NEXTWEB-R1 - Nextweb, Inc,US 209.234.112.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.114.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.116.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.117.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.118.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.119.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.120.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.121.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.122.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 212.119.32.0/19 AS12550 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.64.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.65.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.66.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.67.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.68.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.69.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.70.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.71.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.72.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.73.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.74.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.75.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.76.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.77.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.78.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.255.128.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 213.255.144.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 216.12.163.0/24 AS26627 AS-PILOSOFT - Pilosoft, Inc.,US 216.14.64.0/20 AS14728 MW-INDIANA - Mercury Wireless, LLC,US 216.146.0.0/19 AS11915 TELWEST-NETWORK-SVCS-STATIC - TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS LLC,US 216.152.24.0/22 AS22773 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US 216.170.96.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.101.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.104.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.105.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.234.132.0/24 AS14545 ADR-DRIVING-RECORDS - AMERICAN DRIVING RECORDS, INC.,US Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org 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 Jul 4 22:00:01 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 22:00:01 GMT Subject: BGP Update Report Message-ID: <201407042200.s64M01RA035242@wattle.apnic.net> BGP Update Report Interval: 26-Jun-14 -to- 03-Jul-14 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS9829 86044 3.1% 65.3 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN 2 - AS3292 81533 3.0% 176.9 -- TDC TDC A/S,DK 3 - AS8402 35613 1.3% 35.6 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom",RU 4 - AS4755 25435 0.9% 13.6 -- TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 5 - AS23752 21527 0.8% 175.0 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 6 - AS14287 19015 0.7% 352.1 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 7 - AS17885 18386 0.7% 165.6 -- JKTXLNET-AS-AP PT Excelcomindo Pratama,ID 8 - AS28573 18105 0.7% 4.4 -- NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 9 - AS54113 15806 0.6% 451.6 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 10 - AS4775 15468 0.6% 130.0 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 11 - AS45899 13887 0.5% 35.3 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp,VN 12 - AS7552 13489 0.5% 11.0 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN 13 - AS25184 13203 0.5% 100.8 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 14 - AS17974 12317 0.5% 4.4 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID 15 - AS31148 10854 0.4% 10.4 -- FREENET-AS Freenet Ltd.,UA 16 - AS647 10615 0.4% 85.6 -- DNIC-ASBLK-00616-00665 - DoD Network Information Center,US 17 - AS3 10592 0.4% 134.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 18 - AS14522 10103 0.4% 18.8 -- Satnet,EC 19 - AS7029 9464 0.3% 3.5 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 20 - AS11172 9372 0.3% 11.3 -- Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V.,MX TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS26661 8381 0.3% 2095.2 -- JCPS-ASN - Jeffco Public Schools,US 2 - AS54465 8335 0.3% 1667.0 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 3 - AS3 10592 0.4% 134.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 4 - AS5264 704 0.0% 704.0 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05120-05376 - DoD Network Information Center,US 5 - AS45590 650 0.0% 650.0 -- HGCINTNET-AS-AP Hutch Connect,HK 6 - AS6629 8939 0.3% 638.5 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 7 - AS27750 3017 0.1% 603.4 -- Cooperaci�n Latino Americana de Redes Avanzadas,UY 8 - AS55401 595 0.0% 595.0 -- DEVAS-AS-AP Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.,IN 9 - AS24814 5139 0.2% 571.0 -- SCS-AS Syrian Computer Society, scs,SY 10 - AS56626 2830 0.1% 566.0 -- TUAPSE-AS JSC TUAPSE-SVJAZJ,RU 11 - AS37447 2086 0.1% 521.5 -- OASIS-SPRL,CD 12 - AS16291 517 0.0% 517.0 -- GRUDNIK-KRK-PL Grudnik Sp. z o.o.,PL 13 - AS3 1515 0.1% 1709.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 14 - AS35093 1466 0.1% 488.7 -- RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO 15 - AS57201 486 0.0% 486.0 -- EDF-AS Estonian Defence Forces,EE 16 - AS45577 1420 0.1% 473.3 -- INTERVOLVE-MELBOURNE-AS-AP Interhost Pacific Pty Ltd t/a Intervolve.,AU 17 - AS47660 938 0.0% 469.0 -- CONNECTIC-AS Connectic S.C.Rafal Paluch, Grzegorz Golda,PL 18 - AS54113 15806 0.6% 451.6 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 19 - AS4 896 0.0% 1453.0 -- ISI-AS - University of Southern California,US 20 - AS18135 9100 0.3% 433.3 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 185.17.128.0/24 10420 0.4% AS3 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 2 - 202.70.64.0/21 10384 0.4% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 3 - 202.70.88.0/21 10119 0.3% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 4 - 78.109.192.0/20 10065 0.3% AS25184 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 5 - 42.83.48.0/20 9080 0.3% AS18135 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP 6 - 192.58.232.0/24 8910 0.3% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 7 - 206.152.15.0/24 8331 0.3% AS54465 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 8 - 205.247.12.0/24 8316 0.3% AS6459 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 9 - 120.28.62.0/24 7637 0.3% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 10 - 222.127.0.0/24 7311 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 11 - 89.221.206.0/24 5670 0.2% AS41691 -- SUMTEL-AS-RIPE Summa Telecom LLC,RU 12 - 46.53.64.0/19 5293 0.2% AS24814 -- SCS-AS Syrian Computer Society, scs,SY AS29386 -- EXT-PDN-STE-AS Syrian Telecommunications Establishment,SY 13 - 23.235.39.0/24 5284 0.2% AS54113 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 14 - 23.235.38.0/24 5275 0.2% AS54113 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 15 - 202.54.29.0/24 5219 0.2% AS4755 -- TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 16 - 23.235.34.0/24 5209 0.2% AS54113 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 17 - 92.126.156.0/22 4299 0.1% AS39054 -- STBUR-AS OJSC Rostelecom,RU 18 - 216.162.0.0/20 3802 0.1% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 19 - 208.88.232.0/22 3796 0.1% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 20 - 208.73.244.0/22 3786 0.1% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org eof-list at ripe.net apops at apops.net routing-wg at ripe.net afnog at afnog.org From universe at truemetal.org Sat Jul 5 14:22:03 2014 From: universe at truemetal.org (Markus) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 16:22:03 +0200 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <d0af9f71-20e5-48ca-8407-d44f748d1b08@email.android.com> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <d0af9f71-20e5-48ca-8407-d44f748d1b08@email.android.com> Message-ID: <53B80A0B.1000704@truemetal.org> Am 30.06.2014 18:35, schrieb Charles N Wyble: > Sue him for slander? > > Contact the US DOJ and request extortion charges be filed? I mean if someone was committing a crime against me, I'd certainly be in contact with law enforcement to have charges filed and a warrant out for arrest. Thanks, all. I'll get some consulting from an US lawyer next. Can anyone recommend a skilled, reliable lawyer offlist who "understands" the Internet respectively is tech-savvy? :) Concept of IP addressing, domains, how Google works, web archive, VoIP etc. In the Maryland / Virginia / Washington area. Thanks so much! Markus From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 5 14:31:56 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:31:56 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <53B80A0B.1000704@truemetal.org> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <d0af9f71-20e5-48ca-8407-d44f748d1b08@email.android.com> <53B80A0B.1000704@truemetal.org> Message-ID: <53B80C5C.7010509@meetinghouse.net> Markus wrote: > Am 30.06.2014 18:35, schrieb Charles N Wyble: >> Sue him for slander? >> >> Contact the US DOJ and request extortion charges be filed? I mean if >> someone was committing a crime against me, I'd certainly be in >> contact with law enforcement to have charges filed and a warrant out >> for arrest. > > Thanks, all. > > I'll get some consulting from an US lawyer next. Can anyone recommend > a skilled, reliable lawyer offlist who "understands" the Internet > respectively is tech-savvy? :) Concept of IP addressing, domains, how > Google works, web archive, VoIP etc. > > In the Maryland / Virginia / Washington area. I expect that a call to the EFF offices could direct you to someone. Or the FBI's cybercrime unit in your area. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From cfillekes at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 15:59:14 2014 From: cfillekes at gmail.com (C. A. Fillekes) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:59:14 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> IANAL but I believe criminal defamation is (ta-da!) a criminal offense. Defamation in service of the crime of extortion -- depends on the jurisdiction you decide to prosecute this in. Since the internet is everywhere, you might be able to choose the jurisdiction with the harshest penalty...Singapore? Want to see a scammer flogged? You could sell tickets. Furthermore, since this person (we don't actually know "his" gender, now do we?) has established a clear pattern -- and the victims should be easy to identify -- getting together with 16 other of them could constitute a class, for the purposes of waging a class action suit. Finally, one way to track down this person (I use the term loosely) is to offer a small partial payment of the "debt" -- and see who cashes the check. On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Markus <universe at truemetal.org> wrote: > > Do you think the PI route makes sense? Any other recommendations? Your > > feedback in general? > > Howdy, > > Some information for you to consider: > > 1. There are two things going on here: extortion and libel. > > 2. Extortion is a crime. However, unless a substantial sum was > requested (much more than $1000) it may not be a felony. It can be > federal crime, but if you know who did it and where that individual > is, you'll have better luck pursuing it under state law. Local cops > don't need to justify travel expenses to investigate a local crime. > > 3. The first thing the law enforcement officer will ask you is: are > you prepared to come to the US and testify in court that the > individual you accuse in fact did what you accused them of. If the > answer is no, the case is usually over. > > 4. The next thing they'll want is some evidence. They need to get > enough evidence for "probable cause" so they can ask a judge for a > warrant to search the guy's house, computer, etc. Google the term and > read about it to learn what level of evidence constitutes probable > cause. The more money their department would have to spend to achieve > probable cause, the less attention they'll give the case. Hand it to > them on a platter and you're golden. > > 5. Understand that criminal law is about punishing crimes, not making > things right for the victim. Law enforcement's agenda is it's agenda, > not yours. They're interested in putting the guy in jail, not making > him undo the damage he did to you. > > > 6. Libel, harmfully lying in writing, is not a crime: it's a tort. You > can sue the guy in court but law enforcement won't get involved. Also, > it's covered under state law, not federal. You'll have to sue him > either in the locality where he posted the libel from or in a locality > where you can prove you were specifically harmed by the libel. Nowhere > else has jurisdiction. > > 7. You'll have to prove you were actually harmed by the libel. So he > claimed you are a child molester. Boo hoo. How much money did you lose > from who and where as a result? If you can't prove you lost money, > don't waste your time. > > 8. Chat with a lawyer. Before you hire a PI or contact law enforcement > or do anything else, hire a lawyer in the area where you believe this > creep lives, show him what you have and ask his advice. A few hours of > a lawyer's time doesn't cost a fortune and he'll be able to give you a > realistic picture of your options. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > From bill at herrin.us Sat Jul 5 17:27:30 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:27:30 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes at gmail.com> wrote: > IANAL but I believe criminal defamation is (ta-da!) a criminal offense. Only 17 of the 50 states have criminal defamation laws and in half a century only 16 cases have resulted in conviction. More, a 2012 ruling by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that criminalization of libel is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, making prosecutors that much less willing to file defamation charges based on your complaint. Libel is a civil tort. Pursuing it as a crime won't work out for you. Also, you don't generally file a class action suit unless the class is (A) large and (B) readily identified. When you have 16 actual plaintiffs you file suit with 16 actual complaints. Much easier to win. I concur with the suggestion to ask folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to refer you to a good U.S. lawyer. That's a smart move. The Anti-Defamation League may also be of help though this sort of thing isn't quite their bread and butter. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From cfillekes at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 18:35:01 2014 From: cfillekes at gmail.com (C. A. Fillekes) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 14:35:01 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> 17 is generally the number of people required, in the US, to file a case as a class, which is why I said Markus should find 16 _other_ victims, which shouldn't be terribly hard, if we believe his claim that this scammer has targeted numerous others in this way. Furthermore, since the internet is everywhere, I pointed out (or did you stop reading after I mentioned that we don't actually know the gender of the scammer?) Markus has the option of pursuing this in a jurisdiction where the penalties for criminal defamation are the harshest. It would not have to be in the US. Finally, you fail to address the one very simple way I described to determine who this scammer is: follow the money. Make a small partial payment on this supposed "debt" and see who cashes the check. Much easier than trying to follow "him" around on the internet, though that would be made easier in the course of negotiating a partial payment. On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes at gmail.com> > wrote: > > IANAL but I believe criminal defamation is (ta-da!) a criminal offense. > > Only 17 of the 50 states have criminal defamation laws and in half a > century only 16 cases have resulted in conviction. More, a 2012 ruling > by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that criminalization of > libel is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights, making prosecutors that much less willing > to file defamation charges based on your complaint. > > Libel is a civil tort. Pursuing it as a crime won't work out for you. > > Also, you don't generally file a class action suit unless the class is > (A) large and (B) readily identified. When you have 16 actual > plaintiffs you file suit with 16 actual complaints. Much easier to > win. > > I concur with the suggestion to ask folks at the Electronic Frontier > Foundation to refer you to a good U.S. lawyer. That's a smart move. > The Anti-Defamation League may also be of help though this sort of > thing isn't quite their bread and butter. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > From bill at herrin.us Sat Jul 5 20:46:21 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 16:46:21 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXNcHVxmi0RFdw78hB=8CaNEkn7C9iaZd1SYeyxVbwHMQ@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes at gmail.com> wrote: > 17 is generally the number of people required, in the US, to file a case as > a class, which is why I said Markus should find 16 _other_ victims, which > shouldn't be terribly hard, if we believe his claim that this scammer has > targeted numerous others in this way. Hi Fillekes, For a class action lawsuit, as a rule, there have to be so many possible plaintiffs that it's not practical for them to file their own suits, they have to be making identical claims based on the exact same evidence and you have to have a practical way to identify who the possible plaintiffs (the members of the class) are so they can claim their portion of the damages. That's why class actions are used for things like product liability where the only material difference between the plaintiffs is when and where they bought the faulty product. Everything else about the cases, including all the evidence that the product is faulty, is exactly identical. Not similar or comparable. It's the exact same evidence. Unless I've gravely misunderstood Markus, at least one and probably all three of those conditions won't be met here. > Furthermore, since the internet is everywhere, I pointed out (or did you > stop reading after I mentioned that we don't actually know the gender of the > scammer?) Markus has the option of pursuing this in a jurisdiction where the > penalties for criminal defamation are the harshest. It would not have to be > in the US. That's really not how jurisdiction works. There has to be a tangible connection to the offense. The perp made the libelous statements from the jurisdiction. The perp's web site where the statements were hosted is located on a computer in the jurisdiction. Markus suffered a tangible and specific harm (such as a lost customer) in the jurisdiction. Something more than the possibility that someone in the jurisdiction might have seen the libelous material. He can pursue the matter outside the U.S., of course, but if he's right about the scammer being located in the U.S. that'd be a futile effort. The U.S. doesn't extradite its citizens for speech-based offenses and even if he won a civil suit, he'd have to bring suit again in the U.S. in order to collect damages against any of the scammer's U.S.-based assets. > Finally, you fail to address the one very simple way I described to > determine who this scammer is: follow the money. Make a small partial > payment on this supposed "debt" and see who cashes the check. Much easier > than trying to follow "him" around on the internet, though that would be > made easier in the course of negotiating a partial payment. I didn't read past the word "check." Given the care Markus described the scammer to have taken, I presume he didn't demand a "check." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From streiner at cluebyfour.org Sat Jul 5 20:02:29 2014 From: streiner at cluebyfour.org (Justin M. Streiner) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 16:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407051546090.19286@whammy.cluebyfour.org> On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, C. A. Fillekes wrote: > Furthermore, since the internet is everywhere, I pointed out (or did you > stop reading after I mentioned that we don't actually know the gender of > the scammer?) Markus has the option of pursuing this in a jurisdiction > where the penalties for criminal defamation are the harshest. It would not > have to be in the US. Unless one or more of the plaintiffs is located a country with the harshest penalities, or a plaintiff can otherwise demonstrate how people in country XYZ are being harmed by the scammer's actions, I don't see that going very far. A plaintiff in Germany trying to bring a case to court in Singapore against a defendant in the United States isn't going to work so well. I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that the case would be thrown out because the plaintiff would lack standing to bring a case to court in that country. Yes, the global Internet is a global communications tool, but that doesn't mean you can cherry-pick which country to use in trying a case just because the extortion is taking place over the Internet. > Finally, you fail to address the one very simple way I described to > determine who this scammer is: follow the money. Make a small partial > payment on this supposed "debt" and see who cashes the check. Much easier > than trying to follow "him" around on the internet, though that would be > made easier in the course of negotiating a partial payment. This is much easier to do once law enforcement agencies are engaged. They can trace the money trail more throughly and effectively than you or I can, as civilians. jms From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 5 23:13:20 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:13:20 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407051546090.19286@whammy.cluebyfour.org> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407051546090.19286@whammy.cluebyfour.org> Message-ID: <53B88690.20800@meetinghouse.net> Justin M. Streiner wrote: >> Finally, you fail to address the one very simple way I described to >> determine who this scammer is: follow the money. Make a small partial >> payment on this supposed "debt" and see who cashes the check. Much >> easier >> than trying to follow "him" around on the internet, though that would be >> made easier in the course of negotiating a partial payment. > > This is much easier to do once law enforcement agencies are engaged. > They can trace the money trail more throughly and effectively than you > or I can, as civilians. Not a bad idea. And... forget the class action and defamation stuff. Extortion is the most serious crime, and the one most likely to get law enforcement involved. Start with law enforcement in your own local/national jurisdiction - since that's where you are. Look to them to help track down where the perpetrator is, and then to law enforcement there. Civil action to recover damages will be lot easier after the perpetrator has been located, and perhaps convicted of criminal activity. Markus - perhaps a silly question, but have you contacted any law enforcement authorities yet? Extortion, of multiple people, across national borders, seems like something the Federal Police might be interested in pursuing. And then, if they're posting stuff on Blogspot, you might want to contact Google's legal folks. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 5 23:15:13 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:15:13 -0400 Subject: Next steps in extortion case - ideas? In-Reply-To: <53B88690.20800@meetinghouse.net> References: <53AED1EF.30702@truemetal.org> <CAP-guGW+QgpGmpE4hXxBzA-AYQLncS6RMEBaBPOWKrsqAydP+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWy=mgtSbSHmta+mttp6-HnNZ2p6Nx6C9EJNzbrQg6aGNcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVGxS7h2at46uOGS+_f-KLvKkqunFK9EN3YhHeTy+i=uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKsAWyn3SUG74CZD-5zc-+8djRtEWskH8AZ4Nj2mHRat03fiZQ@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407051546090.19286@whammy.cluebyfour.org> <53B88690.20800@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <53B88701.1080005@meetinghouse.net> Miles Fidelman wrote: > Justin M. Streiner wrote: > >>> Finally, you fail to address the one very simple way I described to >>> determine who this scammer is: follow the money. Make a small partial >>> payment on this supposed "debt" and see who cashes the check. Much >>> easier >>> than trying to follow "him" around on the internet, though that >>> would be >>> made easier in the course of negotiating a partial payment. >> >> This is much easier to do once law enforcement agencies are engaged. >> They can trace the money trail more throughly and effectively than >> you or I can, as civilians. > > Not a bad idea. > > And... forget the class action and defamation stuff. Extortion is the > most serious crime, and the one most likely to get law enforcement > involved. Start with law enforcement in your own local/national > jurisdiction - since that's where you are. Look to them to help track > down where the perpetrator is, and then to law enforcement there. > Civil action to recover damages will be lot easier after the > perpetrator has been located, and perhaps convicted of criminal activity. > > Markus - perhaps a silly question, but have you contacted any law > enforcement authorities yet? Extortion, of multiple people, across > national borders, seems like something the Federal Police might be > interested in pursuing. And then, if they're posting stuff on > Blogspot, you might want to contact Google's legal folks. > > Miles Fidelman > Then again, this could be a job for Anonymous :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From d.p.m.h.vandersteeg at student.utwente.nl Sun Jul 6 21:07:28 2014 From: d.p.m.h.vandersteeg at student.utwente.nl (Daniel van der Steeg) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 23:07:28 +0200 Subject: Question on Cisco EEM Policies Message-ID: <CAPQE55qpGVb4a1Ki_YhAW8Y+Wi2Aaqyedm8FFm8rXrru4gKsOA@mail.gmail.com> Hello all, I have implemented two EEM Policies using TCL on a Cisco Catalyst 6500, both of them running every X seconds. Now I am trying to find a way to monitor the CPU and memory usage of these policies, to determine their footprint. Does anyone have a good idea how I can do this? Thanks, Daniel From rdrake at direcpath.com Mon Jul 7 10:20:07 2014 From: rdrake at direcpath.com (Robert Drake) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 06:20:07 -0400 Subject: Question on Cisco EEM Policies In-Reply-To: <CAPQE55qpGVb4a1Ki_YhAW8Y+Wi2Aaqyedm8FFm8rXrru4gKsOA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPQE55qpGVb4a1Ki_YhAW8Y+Wi2Aaqyedm8FFm8rXrru4gKsOA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53BA7457.1060908@direcpath.com> On 7/6/2014 5:07 PM, Daniel van der Steeg wrote: > Hello all, > > I have implemented two EEM Policies using TCL on a Cisco Catalyst 6500, > both of them running every X seconds. Now I am trying to find a way to > monitor the CPU and memory usage of these policies, to determine their > footprint. Does anyone have a good idea how I can do this? It looks like cpmProcExtUtil5SecRev is what you need. This should be available but it might depend on your IOS. CISCO-PROCESS-MIB shows all the different incarnations of it. You can also use cpmProcExtMemAllocatedRev and cpmProcExtMemFreedRev to track memory usage. Use cpmProcessName to find the process you want to monitor (in this case grepping for PID but you can look for name): [rdrake at machine ~]$ snmpwalk -v2c -c community routername 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.109.1.2.1.1.2 | grep 318 SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.109.1.2.1.1.2.1.318 = STRING: "ISIS Upd PUR" The 1.318 is the important bit. [rdrake at machine ~]$ snmpwalk -v2c -c community routername 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.109.1.2.3.1.5 | grep 318 SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.109.1.2.3.1.5.1.318 = Gauge32: 0 One problem being that this is a percentage with a minimum resolution of 1% (integer based) so even though this is the busiest process on the box I tested on, I always got zero percent. It should be good for thresholding if you want to make sure your process doesn't spike the CPU though. Also, the PID might change every reboot so long term monitoring might be problimatic unless you can associate the process name with the other thing. Reference: http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseMIB.do?local=en&mibName=CISCO-PROCESS-MIB Look at this for oids: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/pub/mibs/oid/CISCO-PROCESS-MIB.oid > > Thanks, > Daniel > Hats, Robert From d.p.m.h.vandersteeg at student.utwente.nl Mon Jul 7 11:33:26 2014 From: d.p.m.h.vandersteeg at student.utwente.nl (Daniel van der Steeg) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:33:26 +0200 Subject: Question on Cisco EEM Policies In-Reply-To: <53BA7457.1060908@direcpath.com> References: <CAPQE55qpGVb4a1Ki_YhAW8Y+Wi2Aaqyedm8FFm8rXrru4gKsOA@mail.gmail.com> <53BA7457.1060908@direcpath.com> Message-ID: <CAPQE55pc-ijaH=if+94-C5O+3awfqJcALLFLfxyMxuUrN_59Sw@mail.gmail.com> Ah, these objects are very useful, thanks. I have noticed the TCL policy is run in a process named EEM TCL Proc, which I can then monitor along with EEM Server and EEM Helper Thread. Indeed it seems to return 0 every time, although this is not unexpected as the runtime (usually) is less then 5 seconds. Any idea if there are more processes I should monitor? Regards, Daniel On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Robert Drake <rdrake at direcpath.com> wrote: > > On 7/6/2014 5:07 PM, Daniel van der Steeg wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I have implemented two EEM Policies using TCL on a Cisco Catalyst 6500, >> both of them running every X seconds. Now I am trying to find a way to >> monitor the CPU and memory usage of these policies, to determine their >> footprint. Does anyone have a good idea how I can do this? >> > > It looks like cpmProcExtUtil5SecRev is what you need. This should be > available but it might depend on your IOS. CISCO-PROCESS-MIB shows all the > different incarnations of it. You can also use cpmProcExtMemAllocatedRev > and cpmProcExtMemFreedRev to track memory usage. > > Use cpmProcessName to find the process you want to monitor (in this case > grepping for PID but you can look for name): > > [rdrake at machine ~]$ snmpwalk -v2c -c community routername > 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.109.1.2.1.1.2 | grep 318 > SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.109.1.2.1.1.2.1.318 = STRING: "ISIS Upd PUR" > > The 1.318 is the important bit. > > [rdrake at machine ~]$ snmpwalk -v2c -c community routername > 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.109.1.2.3.1.5 | grep 318 > SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.109.1.2.3.1.5.1.318 = Gauge32: 0 > > One problem being that this is a percentage with a minimum resolution of > 1% (integer based) so even though this is the busiest process on the box I > tested on, I always got zero percent. It should be good for thresholding > if you want to make sure your process doesn't spike the CPU though. Also, > the PID might change every reboot so long term monitoring might be > problimatic unless you can associate the process name with the other thing. > > Reference: > http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseMIB.do? > local=en&mibName=CISCO-PROCESS-MIB > > Look at this for oids: > ftp://ftp.cisco.com/pub/mibs/oid/CISCO-PROCESS-MIB.oid > > > >> Thanks, >> Daniel >> >> > Hats, > Robert > From skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com Mon Jul 7 14:55:44 2014 From: skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com (Skeeve Stevens) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 00:55:44 +1000 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: <CAEUfUGPNj4t9nntSSu8nrHns4KiMearDuUhygs2pXcpJ9pg-FA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEUfUGPNj4t9nntSSu8nrHns4KiMearDuUhygs2pXcpJ9pg-FA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEUfUGMOs=RiCKUeGS7Q28B9rJ8GCMW7t17Ud_ooY_gZsK0neg@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I have had the A10 Thunder platform recommended off-list by a couple of people and by all reading it looks good, but anyone can do good marketing material. Anyone else here used the Thunder (looking at the 930 or 1030S, maybe even the vThunder) as a NAT444/LSN solution? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Skeeve Stevens < skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am sure this is something that a reasonable number of people would have > done on this list. > > I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile > NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. > > I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider > other options, including open source.... Obviously the cheaper the better. > > This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the > typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in > what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which > may work. > > This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it > is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that > point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade > and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not > doing v6 straight up please. > > Happy for feedback off-list of any solutions that people have found work > well... > > Note, I am in Australia so any vendors which aren't easily accessible down > here, won't be useful. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering > From corbe at corbe.net Mon Jul 7 15:19:33 2014 From: corbe at corbe.net (Daniel Corbe) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 11:19:33 -0400 Subject: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution In-Reply-To: <CAEUfUGMOs=RiCKUeGS7Q28B9rJ8GCMW7t17Ud_ooY_gZsK0neg@mail.gmail.com> (Skeeve Stevens's message of "Tue, 8 Jul 2014 00:55:44 +1000") References: <CAEUfUGPNj4t9nntSSu8nrHns4KiMearDuUhygs2pXcpJ9pg-FA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEUfUGMOs=RiCKUeGS7Q28B9rJ8GCMW7t17Ud_ooY_gZsK0neg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ygf38ed6vsq.fsf@corbe.net> I use the Thunder for CGNAT but I've never tried to do NAT444 with it. The thing I like about A10 is their TAC is awesome. If they say the box supports something, then their TAC people will break their backs to try and get it working for you. -Daniel Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com> writes: > Hi all, > > I have had the A10 Thunder platform recommended off-list by a couple of > people and by all reading it looks good, but anyone can do good marketing > material. > > Anyone else here used the Thunder (looking at the 930 or 1030S, maybe even > the vThunder) as a NAT444/LSN solution? > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Skeeve Stevens < > skeeve+nanog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am sure this is something that a reasonable number of people would have >> done on this list. >> >> I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile >> NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. >> >> I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider >> other options, including open source.... Obviously the cheaper the better. >> >> This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the >> typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in >> what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which >> may work. >> >> This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it >> is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that >> point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade >> and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not >> doing v6 straight up please. >> >> Happy for feedback off-list of any solutions that people have found work >> well... >> >> Note, I am in Australia so any vendors which aren't easily accessible down >> here, won't be useful. >> >> >> ...Skeeve >> >> *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd >> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com >> >> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >> >> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> >> linkedin.com/in/skeeve >> >> experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 >> >> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >> >> >> The Experts Who The Experts Call >> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering >> From me at anuragbhatia.com Mon Jul 7 18:33:12 2014 From: me at anuragbhatia.com (Anurag Bhatia) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 00:03:12 +0530 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Message-ID: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> Hello everyone! I have quick question on how you provide full BGP table to downstream customers? Most of large networks have few border routers ("Internet gateways") which get full table feed and then they have "Access routers" on which customers are terminated. Now I don't think it makes sense to push full routing table on the "access routers" and simply their default points to border routers. In this scenario what is best practice for giving full table to downstream? 1. Having multi-hop BGP session with a loopback on "border router" for injecting full table in customer router and another BGP session with access router for receiving routes? (messy!) 2. Injecting full table in just all access routers so that it can be provided whenever needed? 3. Any other? Thanks in advance! -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> Skype: anuragbhatia.com PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2 From jason at lixfeld.ca Mon Jul 7 18:46:05 2014 From: jason at lixfeld.ca (Jason Lixfeld) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:46:05 -0400 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1E4F174D-09C6-4F40-80B7-B0DC9FAE79A6@lixfeld.ca> 1. You already know that multihop is very ugly. If it's for a one-off, it's probably fine. But building a product around multi-hop wouldn't be my first choice. 2. Most of the router/switch vendors that can support a full table are pretty expensive, per port. Your best bet here might be to look into some way of transparently dragging customer traffic from the PE to the BGP speaker, which leads me to: 3. If your network is MPLS enabled, you can do a routed pseudowire from a BGP speaking router with a full table to the access router (PE). Other tunnelling technologies can probably do the same thing; GRE, L2TPv3 and also a plain'ol VLAN can do it too, depending on your network topology. Do some sort of OAM over top of either of those (if your platform supports it) and it looks just like a wire to the end customer. On Jul 7, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Anurag Bhatia <me at anuragbhatia.com> wrote: > Hello everyone! > > > I have quick question on how you provide full BGP table to downstream > customers? > > > Most of large networks have few border routers ("Internet gateways") which > get full table feed and then they have "Access routers" on which customers > are terminated. Now I don't think it makes sense to push full routing table > on the "access routers" and simply their default points to border routers. > > > In this scenario what is best practice for giving full table to downstream? > > > 1. Having multi-hop BGP session with a loopback on "border router" for > injecting full table in customer router and another BGP session with access > router for receiving routes? (messy!) > > > 2. Injecting full table in just all access routers so that it can be > provided whenever needed? > > 3. Any other? > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > -- > > > Anurag Bhatia > anuragbhatia.com > > Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> > Skype: anuragbhatia.com > > PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2 From mike at sentex.net Tue Jul 8 13:15:24 2014 From: mike at sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:15:24 -0400 Subject: Anyone from AS7160 (Oracle) around ? Message-ID: <53BBEEEC.3040504@sentex.net> Hi, I have been trying to get a hold of someone who looks after ASN 7160 since last Thursday both directly (OrgTechEmail), and indirectly via upstreams with no luck. I am trying to resolve or at least understand a routing reachability issue between our two networks. It seems packets from ASN7160 are not able to get back to some of my netblocks in AS 11647. e.g. eg. this is fine % traceroute -q1 -s 98.159.240.105 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 98.159.240.105, 64 hops max, 72 byte packets 1 cogent-vl38-tor-hespler-v38 (205.211.165.117) 0.091 ms 2 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 0.701 ms 3 te0-7-0-12.ccr22.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.165) 0.765 ms 4 be2080.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.5) 15.871 ms 5 be2003.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.22) 17.882 ms 6 38.104.102.102 (38.104.102.102) 17.395 ms 7 border2.te7-1-bbnet1.chg004.pnap.net (64.94.32.19) 16.335 ms 8 oraclebol-7.border2.chg004.pnap.net (74.217.8.106) 16.945 ms 9 VIP-CH-77-173.taleo.net (68.233.77.173) 17.014 ms This is not % traceroute -q1 -s 205.211.165.119 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 205.211.165.119, 64 hops max, 72 byte packets 1 cogent-vl38-tor-hespler-v38 (205.211.165.117) 0.145 ms 2 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 7.926 ms 3 te0-7-0-12.ccr22.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.165) 1.081 ms 4 be2080.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.5) 15.699 ms 5 be2003.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.22) 15.394 ms 6 * 7 * 8 * Same with 64.7.137.0/24 and 64.7.135.0/24 for some reason, but not all subnets within 64.7.128.0/19 are blocked. % traceroute -q1 -s 64.7.135.1 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 64.7.135.1, 64 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 iolite3 (199.212.135.73) 0.234 ms 2 cogent-vl108 (67.43.129.246) 2.575 ms 3 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 2.844 ms 4 te0-7-0-12.ccr21.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.137) 3.460 ms 5 be2079.ccr41.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.181) 17.338 ms 6 be2005.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.74) 17.962 ms 7 * vs % traceroute -q1 -s 64.7.138.225 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 64.7.138.225, 64 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 iolite3 (199.212.135.73) 0.193 ms 2 cogent-vl108 (67.43.129.246) 2.210 ms 3 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 2.469 ms 4 te0-7-0-12.ccr22.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.165) 3.091 ms 5 be2080.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.5) 17.566 ms 6 be2003.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.22) 18.457 ms 7 38.104.102.102 (38.104.102.102) 17.831 ms 8 border2.te8-1-bbnet2.chg004.pnap.net (64.94.32.83) 22.324 ms 9 oraclebol-7.border2.chg004.pnap.net (74.217.8.106) 19.091 ms 10 VIP-CH-77-173.taleo.net (68.233.77.173) 20.318 ms The issue started around July 3rd some time. I have tried the listed contacts OrgTechHandle: NOC2096-ARIN OrgTechName: Network Operation Center OrgTechPhone: +1-877-524-5665 OrgTechEmail: network-contact_ww at oracle.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC2096-ARIN with no luck since last Thursday. The toll free people were trying their best to understand who within Oracle I was trying to reach, but its not part of their normal decision tree. via TATA and abovenet gives similar results. traceroute -q1 -Picmp -s 205.211.165.121 68.233.77.173 traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 205.211.165.121, 64 hops max, 72 byte packets 1 ix-11-2-3-0.tcore1.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (209.58.16.21) 0.170 ms 2 if-5-0-0-5.core4.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (63.243.172.25) 30.856 ms 3 if-0-3-2-0.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (63.243.172.34) 14.203 ms 4 63.243.129.14 (63.243.129.14) 13.967 ms 5 ae4.cr1.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.28.49) 12.203 ms 6 ae9.mpr1.ord11.us.above.net (64.125.24.106) 13.043 ms 7 ae4.mpr1.ord5.us.above.net (64.125.24.94) 15.027 ms 8 * traceroute -q1 -Picmp -s 67.43.129.244 68.233.77.173 traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 67.43.129.244, 64 hops max, 72 byte packets 1 ix-11-2-3-0.tcore1.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (209.58.16.21) 29.514 ms 2 if-11-0-0-4.core4.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (64.86.33.42) 0.376 ms 3 if-2-3-2-0.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (63.243.172.42) 12.124 ms 4 63.243.129.14 (63.243.129.14) 13.624 ms 5 ae4.cr1.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.28.49) 12.607 ms 6 ae9.mpr1.ord11.us.above.net (64.125.24.106) 14.290 ms 7 ae4.mpr1.ord5.us.above.net (64.125.24.94) 13.500 ms 8 208.185.21.162 (208.185.21.162) 13.476 ms 9 VIP-CH-77-173.taleo.net (68.233.77.173) 13.778 ms ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike at sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ From jared at puck.nether.net Tue Jul 8 13:23:21 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:23:21 -0400 Subject: Anyone from AS7160 (Oracle) around ? In-Reply-To: <53BBEEEC.3040504@sentex.net> References: <53BBEEEC.3040504@sentex.net> Message-ID: <061E915A-CDC9-4A60-B8B9-9DC40843BF5A@puck.nether.net> On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Mike Tancsa <mike at sentex.net> wrote: > Hi, > I have been trying to get a hold of someone who looks after ASN 7160 since last Thursday both directly (OrgTechEmail), and indirectly via upstreams with no luck. I am trying to resolve or at least understand a routing reachability issue between our two networks. It seems packets from ASN7160 are not able to get back to some of my netblocks in AS 11647. > e.g. I created a public measurement for you to view the results from various locations: https://atlas.ripe.net/api/v1/measurement/1695662/result/ or if you get a free atlas.ripe.net account you can visualize it better here: https://atlas.ripe.net/atlas/udm.html?msm_id=1695662 - Jared From mike at sentex.net Tue Jul 8 19:28:18 2014 From: mike at sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:28:18 -0400 Subject: Anyone from AS7160 (Oracle) around ? How about Inernap and Voxel ? In-Reply-To: <53BBEEEC.3040504@sentex.net> References: <53BBEEEC.3040504@sentex.net> Message-ID: <53BC4652.3020406@sentex.net> Thanks to an unnamed frontline staff member who worked hard to find the right people at Oracle, I found the right people at Oracle-- She had no idea what I was talking about, but knew how to figure out how to find who I needed and didnt give up! It seems Oracle is being sent bogus routing information from their PNAP peer. They are learning, what seems to be a random subnet of prefixes (two of which I am not even announcing-- 64.7.135.0/24 and 64.7.137.0/24) that are learned from Torix. The path that 7160 sees is 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 They see the following prefixes leaking out of Torix. But if they do a traceroute, the packets just bounce around between Voxel and PNAP. Traceroute below. I have emailed the listed POCs, but no response. Anyone here from those 2 networks ? 64.7.128.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w4d 11:08:57, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 64.7.135.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w4d 12:03:19, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 64.7.137.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w4d 13:52:08, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 198.235.180.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w4d 06:07:16, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 198.235.181.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w3d 06:53:31, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 198.235.183.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w4d 02:44:55, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 204.138.108.0/24 [BGP/170] 1w4d 05:18:36, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 205.211.165.0/24 *[BGP/170] 1w4d 08:04:32, localpref 100 AS path: 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 I > to 74.217.8.105 via xe-2/2/0.0 traceroute to 64.7.135.1 (64.7.135.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 74.217.8.105 (74.217.8.105) 0.642 ms 0.514 ms 0.503 ms 2 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.479 ms 1.564 ms 1.503 ms 3 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 11.579 ms 1.428 ms 1.388 ms 4 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 1.773 ms 66.151.28.141 (66.151.28.141) 1.580 ms 1.524 ms 5 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.448 ms 1.554 ms 1.558 ms 6 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 10.274 ms 1.245 ms 1.232 ms 7 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 1.831 ms 1.800 ms 1.785 ms 8 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 2.027 ms 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.519 ms 1.605 ms 9 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 8.869 ms 1.291 ms 1.269 ms 10 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 1.872 ms 3.619 ms 1.869 ms 11 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 2.080 ms 1.956 ms 3.242 ms 12 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 6.033 ms 1.332 ms 1.302 ms 13 66.151.28.141 (66.151.28.141) 1.818 ms 2.006 ms 1.882 ms 14 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.699 ms 1.670 ms 1.615 ms 15 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 9.590 ms 1.566 ms 1.540 ms 16 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 1.891 ms 1.978 ms 1.869 ms 17 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 2.139 ms 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.726 ms 1.741 ms 18 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 8.236 ms 1.416 ms 1.403 ms 19 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 2.251 ms 1.987 ms 1.968 ms 20 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 2.154 ms 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.818 ms 1.754 ms 21 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 7.431 ms 1.684 ms 1.434 ms 22 66.151.28.141 (66.151.28.141) 1.758 ms 1.764 ms 2.006 ms 23 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.798 ms 1.691 ms 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 2.201 ms 24 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 8.134 ms 1.469 ms 1.485 ms 25 66.151.28.141 (66.151.28.141) 10.774 ms 1.885 ms 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 1.794 ms 26 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.720 ms 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 3.555 ms 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.831 ms 27 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 1.762 ms 1.696 ms 1.714 ms 28 66.151.28.149 (66.151.28.149) 2.074 ms 66.151.28.141 (66.151.28.141) 2.286 ms 1.919 ms 29 64.94.32.78 (64.94.32.78) 3.616 ms 2.337 ms 64.94.32.14 (64.94.32.14) 1.911 ms 30 208.122.29.21 (208.122.29.21) 1.737 ms 1.528 ms 1.554 ms ---Mike On 7/8/2014 9:15 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > Hi, > I have been trying to get a hold of someone who looks after ASN > 7160 since last Thursday both directly (OrgTechEmail), and indirectly > via upstreams with no luck. I am trying to resolve or at least > understand a routing reachability issue between our two networks. It > seems packets from ASN7160 are not able to get back to some of my > netblocks in AS 11647. > e.g. > > eg. this is fine > % traceroute -q1 -s 98.159.240.105 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 > traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 98.159.240.105, 64 hops > max, 72 byte packets > 1 cogent-vl38-tor-hespler-v38 (205.211.165.117) 0.091 ms > 2 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 0.701 ms > 3 te0-7-0-12.ccr22.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.165) 0.765 ms > 4 be2080.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.5) 15.871 ms > 5 be2003.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.22) 17.882 ms > 6 38.104.102.102 (38.104.102.102) 17.395 ms > 7 border2.te7-1-bbnet1.chg004.pnap.net (64.94.32.19) 16.335 ms > 8 oraclebol-7.border2.chg004.pnap.net (74.217.8.106) 16.945 ms > 9 VIP-CH-77-173.taleo.net (68.233.77.173) 17.014 ms > > This is not > % traceroute -q1 -s 205.211.165.119 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 > traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 205.211.165.119, 64 > hops max, 72 byte packets > 1 cogent-vl38-tor-hespler-v38 (205.211.165.117) 0.145 ms > 2 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 7.926 ms > 3 te0-7-0-12.ccr22.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.165) 1.081 ms > 4 be2080.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.5) 15.699 ms > 5 be2003.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.22) 15.394 ms > 6 * > 7 * > 8 * > > Same with 64.7.137.0/24 and 64.7.135.0/24 for some reason, but not all > subnets within 64.7.128.0/19 are blocked. > > % traceroute -q1 -s 64.7.135.1 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 > traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 64.7.135.1, 64 hops > max, 60 byte packets > 1 iolite3 (199.212.135.73) 0.234 ms > 2 cogent-vl108 (67.43.129.246) 2.575 ms > 3 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 2.844 ms > 4 te0-7-0-12.ccr21.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.137) 3.460 ms > 5 be2079.ccr41.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.181) 17.338 ms > 6 be2005.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.74) 17.962 ms > 7 * > vs > % traceroute -q1 -s 64.7.138.225 -Picmp 68.233.77.173 > traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 64.7.138.225, 64 hops > max, 60 byte packets > 1 iolite3 (199.212.135.73) 0.193 ms > 2 cogent-vl108 (67.43.129.246) 2.210 ms > 3 gi1-18.mag02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.158.77) 2.469 ms > 4 te0-7-0-12.ccr22.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.165) 3.091 ms > 5 be2080.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.5) 17.566 ms > 6 be2003.ccr21.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.22) 18.457 ms > 7 38.104.102.102 (38.104.102.102) 17.831 ms > 8 border2.te8-1-bbnet2.chg004.pnap.net (64.94.32.83) 22.324 ms > 9 oraclebol-7.border2.chg004.pnap.net (74.217.8.106) 19.091 ms > 10 VIP-CH-77-173.taleo.net (68.233.77.173) 20.318 ms > > The issue started around July 3rd some time. I have tried the listed > contacts > > OrgTechHandle: NOC2096-ARIN > OrgTechName: Network Operation Center > OrgTechPhone: +1-877-524-5665 > OrgTechEmail: network-contact_ww at oracle.com > OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC2096-ARIN > > with no luck since last Thursday. The toll free people were trying > their best to understand who within Oracle I was trying to reach, but > its not part of their normal decision tree. > > via TATA and abovenet gives similar results. > > traceroute -q1 -Picmp -s 205.211.165.121 68.233.77.173 > traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 205.211.165.121, 64 > hops max, 72 byte packets > 1 ix-11-2-3-0.tcore1.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (209.58.16.21) 0.170 ms > 2 if-5-0-0-5.core4.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (63.243.172.25) 30.856 ms > 3 if-0-3-2-0.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (63.243.172.34) 14.203 ms > 4 63.243.129.14 (63.243.129.14) 13.967 ms > 5 ae4.cr1.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.28.49) 12.203 ms > 6 ae9.mpr1.ord11.us.above.net (64.125.24.106) 13.043 ms > 7 ae4.mpr1.ord5.us.above.net (64.125.24.94) 15.027 ms > 8 * > traceroute -q1 -Picmp -s 67.43.129.244 68.233.77.173 > traceroute to 68.233.77.173 (68.233.77.173) from 67.43.129.244, 64 hops > max, 72 byte packets > 1 ix-11-2-3-0.tcore1.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (209.58.16.21) 29.514 ms > 2 if-11-0-0-4.core4.TNK-Toronto.as6453.net (64.86.33.42) 0.376 ms > 3 if-2-3-2-0.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (63.243.172.42) 12.124 ms > 4 63.243.129.14 (63.243.129.14) 13.624 ms > 5 ae4.cr1.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.28.49) 12.607 ms > 6 ae9.mpr1.ord11.us.above.net (64.125.24.106) 14.290 ms > 7 ae4.mpr1.ord5.us.above.net (64.125.24.94) 13.500 ms > 8 208.185.21.162 (208.185.21.162) 13.476 ms > 9 VIP-CH-77-173.taleo.net (68.233.77.173) 13.778 ms > > > > ---Mike > -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike at sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 8 20:45:07 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 05:45:07 +0900 Subject: new york new york Message-ID: <m2wqbna8bw.wl%randy@psg.com> susan crawford, @scrawford, tweeted this really well done survey of the major internet infrastructure in nyc. http://cromwell-intl.com/travel/usa/new-york-internet/ randy From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jul 8 20:56:26 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:56:26 +0200 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407082256.26816.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag Bhatia wrote: > In this scenario what is best practice for giving full > table to downstream? In our case, we have three types of edge routers; Juniper MX480 + Cisco ASR1006, and the Cisco ME3600X. For the MX480 and ASR1006 have no problems supporting a full table. So customers peer natively. The ME3600X is a small switch, that supports only up to 24,000 IPv4 and 5,000 IPv6 FIB entries. However, Cisco have a feature called BGP Selective Download: http://tinyurl.com/nodnmct Using BGP-SD, we can send a full BGP table from our route reflectors to our ME3600X switches, without worrying about them entering the FIB, i.e., they are held only in memory. The beauty - you can advertise these routes to customers natively, without clunky eBGP Multi-Hop sessions running rampant. Of course, with BGP-SD, you still need a 0/0 + ::/0 route in the FIB for traffic to flow from your customers upstream, but that is fine as it's only two entries :-). If your system supports a BGP-SD-type implementation, I'd recommend it, provided you have sufficient control plane memory. Cheers, Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140708/55ee3447/attachment.pgp> From muddywatersblues at hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 16:30:19 2014 From: muddywatersblues at hotmail.com (Chris Lowe) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:30:19 -0600 Subject: Colo Internet Carriers in Atlanta Area Message-ID: <BLU178-W5C29B3F16A0AD294708B8C50C0@phx.gbl> My organization is building a new data center in the Atlanta area. I need to identify a couple of carriers stability is preferred over cost. Please let me know your preferred carriers as well as any carriers that you would stay away from. Thanks! From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jul 8 20:58:32 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:58:32 +0200 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <1E4F174D-09C6-4F40-80B7-B0DC9FAE79A6@lixfeld.ca> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <1E4F174D-09C6-4F40-80B7-B0DC9FAE79A6@lixfeld.ca> Message-ID: <201407082258.32748.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:46:05 PM Jason Lixfeld wrote: > 1. You already know that multihop is very ugly. If it's > for a one-off, it's probably fine. But building a > product around multi-hop wouldn't be my first choice. We prefer Layer 2 bundling technologies like 802.1AX, POS bundles or ML-PPP. However, some customers just can't support this, but have multiple links to us and need load sharing. In this case, eBGP Mulit-Hop is a reasonable use-case. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140708/b99ef873/attachment.pgp> From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jul 8 21:07:06 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 23:07:06 +0200 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <1E4F174D-09C6-4F40-80B7-B0DC9FAE79A6@lixfeld.ca> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <1E4F174D-09C6-4F40-80B7-B0DC9FAE79A6@lixfeld.ca> Message-ID: <201407082307.06829.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:46:05 PM Jason Lixfeld wrote: > 3. If your network is MPLS enabled, you can do a routed > pseudowire from a BGP speaking router with a full table > to the access router (PE). Other tunnelling > technologies can probably do the same thing; GRE, L2TPv3 > and also a plain'ol VLAN can do it too, depending on > your network topology. Do some sort of OAM over top of > either of those (if your platform supports it) and it > looks just like a wire to the end customer. Nasty, as I generally walk away from centralization. However, if that's your only option... Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140708/e223949a/attachment.pgp> From fourzerofour at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 21:06:05 2014 From: fourzerofour at gmail.com (Justin) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:06:05 -0400 Subject: Colo Internet Carriers in Atlanta Area In-Reply-To: <BLU178-W5C29B3F16A0AD294708B8C50C0@phx.gbl> References: <BLU178-W5C29B3F16A0AD294708B8C50C0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <CAMMeA5UCd1X2GmY4KZAFzRhgz6WgcycAkYUL-YKzD=+AM3-Hpw@mail.gmail.com> We have DCs in Suwanee and Atlanta. We use NTT and TWT at both. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Chris Lowe <muddywatersblues at hotmail.com> wrote: > My organization is building a new data center in the Atlanta area. I need > to identify a couple of carriers stability is preferred over cost. > Please let me know your preferred carriers as well as any carriers that > you would stay away from. > Thanks! > > > > From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 9 00:31:16 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 19:31:16 -0500 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... Message-ID: <53BC8D54.80205@cox.net> http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?" http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From mike at sentex.net Wed Jul 9 01:48:29 2014 From: mike at sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:48:29 -0400 Subject: Anyone from AS7160 (Oracle) around ? How about Inernap and Voxel ? In-Reply-To: <53BC4652.3020406@sentex.net> References: <53BBEEEC.3040504@sentex.net> <53BC4652.3020406@sentex.net> Message-ID: <53BC9F6D.2010902@sentex.net> > > It seems Oracle is being sent bogus routing information from their PNAP > peer. They are learning, what seems to be a random subnet of prefixes > (two of which I am not even announcing-- 64.7.135.0/24 and > 64.7.137.0/24) that are learned from Torix. The path that 7160 sees is > > 19024 29791 8001 11670 11647 The nice people at pnap actually took my call--I have had a couple in the past say, "Sorry, you are not our customer. <click>".. They found an issue with their routing engine injecting stale / bogus info into parts of their network and corrected it. ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike at sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ From mianosm at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 10:34:33 2014 From: mianosm at gmail.com (Steven Miano) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:34:33 -0400 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... In-Reply-To: <53BC8D54.80205@cox.net> References: <53BC8D54.80205@cox.net> Message-ID: <CACkP6k=jTmvk56M0CBmBJ+euDrr_ZgYSvuy1-eF6=NChkobYwg@mail.gmail.com> Rest of the article for those interested/lazy: http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-arctic-icebreaker/ Seems like most ships I've seen...satellite communication is nothing new/crazy. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> wrote: > http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/ > icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg > > In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?" > > http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/ > 3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) > -- <http://stevenmiano.com/> Miano, Steven M. http://stevenmiano.com From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 9 14:08:56 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:08:56 -0400 Subject: hotmail email issues today? Message-ID: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> Anyone know what happened? I've started to see a large number of bounces from them (this caused a large number of people with their e-mail hosted there to be removed from mailing lists I host). Offlist replies/pointers to what I'm doing wrong are welcome. - Jared From Matthew.Black at csulb.edu Wed Jul 9 14:32:54 2014 From: Matthew.Black at csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:32:54 +0000 Subject: hotmail email issues today? In-Reply-To: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> References: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a DMARC issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches. https://wordtothewise.com/2014/04/brief-dmarc-primer/ A brief DMARC primer http://dmarc.org/overview.html DMARC Overview http://www.socketlabs.com/blog/yahoo-com-changes-dmarc-policy/ Yahoo.com Changes DMARC Policy http://yahoomail.tumblr.com/post/82426900353/yahoo-dmarc-policy-change-what-should-senders-do Yahoo DMARC Policy Change - What Should Senders Do? http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/82426971544/an-update-on-our-dmarc-policy-to-protect-our-users An Update on our DMARC Policy to Protect Our Users http://www.lsoft.com/news/2014/listserv160-2014a-us.asp LISTSERV(r) Inventor Develops Seamless Solution to DMARC Hassles matthew black california state university, long beach -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:09 AM To: NANOG list Subject: hotmail email issues today? Anyone know what happened? I've started to see a large number of bounces from them (this caused a large number of people with their e-mail hosted there to be removed from mailing lists I host). Offlist replies/pointers to what I'm doing wrong are welcome. - Jared From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 9 14:36:17 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:36:17 -0400 Subject: hotmail email issues today? In-Reply-To: <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> References: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> Message-ID: <251E372D-9587-4647-9688-3C38D23A067E@puck.nether.net> I'm adjusting mailman now to do this hoping that's it. It's on the privacy->sender tab. If you got unsubscribed from cisco-nsp or juniper-nsp this morning this is likely why. (ugh, 56 lists to adjust).. - Jared On Jul 9, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Matthew Black <Matthew.Black at csulb.edu> wrote: > If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a DMARC issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches. > > https://wordtothewise.com/2014/04/brief-dmarc-primer/ > A brief DMARC primer > > http://dmarc.org/overview.html > DMARC Overview > > http://www.socketlabs.com/blog/yahoo-com-changes-dmarc-policy/ > Yahoo.com Changes DMARC Policy > > http://yahoomail.tumblr.com/post/82426900353/yahoo-dmarc-policy-change-what-should-senders-do > Yahoo DMARC Policy Change - What Should Senders Do? > > http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/82426971544/an-update-on-our-dmarc-policy-to-protect-our-users > An Update on our DMARC Policy to Protect Our Users > > http://www.lsoft.com/news/2014/listserv160-2014a-us.asp > LISTSERV(r) Inventor Develops Seamless Solution to DMARC Hassles > > > matthew black > california state university, long beach > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:09 AM > To: NANOG list > Subject: hotmail email issues today? > > Anyone know what happened? I've started to see a large number of bounces from them (this caused a large number of people with their e-mail hosted there to be removed from mailing lists I host). > > Offlist replies/pointers to what I'm doing wrong are welcome. > > - Jared From randy at psg.com Wed Jul 9 14:40:57 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:40:57 +0900 Subject: hotmail email issues today? In-Reply-To: <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> References: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> Message-ID: <m2mwci8uiu.wl%randy@psg.com> > If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a > DMARC issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches. or let them drop and hopr they move to a standards-compliant email home. they're not called yahoos for nothing. randy From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 15:04:10 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:04:10 -0400 Subject: hotmail email issues today? In-Reply-To: <m2mwci8uiu.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> <m2mwci8uiu.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaDtRMTGjs3rgQ8EsSOn3vT_Lzg3AcVHw2ZQLeBGMCCXg@mail.gmail.com> it's not clear (to me at least) that hotmail has deployed any DMARC config at all, actually: $ dig txt _dmarc.hotmail.com +short $ dig txt _dmarc.outlook.com +short no results... but: $ dig txt _dmarc.gmail.com +short "v=DMARC1\; p=none\; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports at google.com" On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: >> If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a >> DMARC issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches. > > or let them drop and hopr they move to a standards-compliant email home. > they're not called yahoos for nothing. > > randy From jimpop at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 15:15:13 2014 From: jimpop at gmail.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:15:13 -0400 Subject: hotmail email issues today? In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaDtRMTGjs3rgQ8EsSOn3vT_Lzg3AcVHw2ZQLeBGMCCXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> <m2mwci8uiu.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaaDtRMTGjs3rgQ8EsSOn3vT_Lzg3AcVHw2ZQLeBGMCCXg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAGfsgR1LG01iNgG7DhbB+MgFFLgzNeOdkXLDAR4-rupSnQBOeA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > it's not clear (to me at least) that hotmail has deployed any DMARC Don't let that stop others from offering leftfield advice. :-) According to MailOP, Yahoo had acceptability issues as well this AM. -Jim P. From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 9 16:12:59 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:12:59 -0400 Subject: hotmail email issues today? In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaDtRMTGjs3rgQ8EsSOn3vT_Lzg3AcVHw2ZQLeBGMCCXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <44B805CE-C2E8-4C07-8168-81BF70471B77@puck.nether.net> <ED78B1C68B84A14FA706D13A230D7B43360C5151@ITS-MAIL01.campus.ad.csulb.edu> <m2mwci8uiu.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaaDtRMTGjs3rgQ8EsSOn3vT_Lzg3AcVHw2ZQLeBGMCCXg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CE587F06-6E82-4E87-BCF3-64D025B30B07@puck.nether.net> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > it's not clear (to me at least) that hotmail has deployed any DMARC > config at all, actually: > > $ dig txt _dmarc.hotmail.com +short > $ dig txt _dmarc.outlook.com +short > > no results... but: > $ dig txt _dmarc.gmail.com +short > "v=DMARC1\; p=none\; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports at google.com" > I suspect they started checking DMARC in the past 24 hours. This impacts those who have "hotmail for their own domain" in addition to hotmail.com addresses. - Jared From dmburgess at linktechs.net Wed Jul 9 18:18:13 2014 From: dmburgess at linktechs.net (Dennis Burgess) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:18:13 -0500 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange Message-ID: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> " Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs <skype:linktechs?call> -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV Whitespace From mureninc at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 18:29:29 2014 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:29:29 -0700 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> Message-ID: <CAPKkNb7ddhCt9Jqj7BPE-B+V3p1_gZoejw-AnH-UE+U+cbd4eA@mail.gmail.com> On 9 July 2014 11:18, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess at linktechs.net> wrote: > Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to > Torx in Toronto. http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Routers_and_Routing/Internet_Exchanges/North_America/ C. From wmaton at ottix.net Wed Jul 9 18:34:29 2014 From: wmaton at ottix.net (William F. Maton Sotomayor) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.03.1407091434030.9391@iskra.ottix.net> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Dennis Burgess wrote: > Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to > Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J Telegeography may have this or: https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/ > > > > Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- > Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> " > > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > > Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: > http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs > <skype:linktechs?call> > > -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com > <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV > Whitespace > > > > wfms From zaid at zaidali.com Wed Jul 9 18:35:37 2014 From: zaid at zaidali.com (Zaid A. Kahn) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:35:37 -0700 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> Message-ID: <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth. Zaid On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess at linktechs.net> wrote: > Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to > Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J > > > > Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- > Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> " > > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > > Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: > http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs > <skype:linktechs?call> > > -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com > <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV > Whitespace > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/1e00b721/attachment.pgp> From woody at pch.net Wed Jul 9 19:36:23 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:36:23 -0700 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> Message-ID: <63C6B422-48B8-4FC1-8A64-9A26F009B18C@pch.net> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Zaid A. Kahn <zaid at zaidali.com> wrote: > PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth. That’s user-submitted data. The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is independently verified by our staff. So what’s there isn’t always up-to-date, but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been verified by someone going and laying eyes on it. On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor <wmaton at ottix.net> wrote: > https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/ Or, more specifically, https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/index.php?new=1&show_active_only=1&sort=Region&order=desc …gets you exactly what you’re looking for. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/814fa94a/attachment.pgp> From patrick at ianai.net Wed Jul 9 19:46:51 2014 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:46:51 -0400 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <63C6B422-48B8-4FC1-8A64-9A26F009B18C@pch.net> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> <63C6B422-48B8-4FC1-8A64-9A26F009B18C@pch.net> Message-ID: <6C90E4DA-23F7-49A2-A932-61513FBD31D0@ianai.net> On Jul 09, 2014, at 15:36 , Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Zaid A. Kahn <zaid at zaidali.com> wrote: > >> PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth. > > That’s user-submitted data. The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is independently verified by our staff. So what’s there isn’t always up-to-date, but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been verified by someone going and laying eyes on it. It is ever-so-slightly better than user-submitted data. Specifically, if an IX or a colo tells us "this person says they are a [Customer|Member|whatever] and they are not", we will remove that row from the DB. Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. Just the opposite. > On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor <wmaton at ottix.net> wrote: >> https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/ > > Or, more specifically, > > https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/index.php?new=1&show_active_only=1&sort=Region&order=desc > > …gets you exactly what you’re looking for. Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says "177" under "participants", but <http://www.seattleix.net/participants.htm> disagrees. To be clear, PCH does a better job than most (all?) others. And a ridiculously difficult job it is. Finding how each IXP presents its user / traffic / whatever data an trying to collate it is nearly impossible. But thank you for trying! -- TTFN, patrick -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 535 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/34242d24/attachment.pgp> From woody at pch.net Wed Jul 9 20:03:48 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:03:48 -0700 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <6C90E4DA-23F7-49A2-A932-61513FBD31D0@ianai.net> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> <63C6B422-48B8-4FC1-8A64-9A26F009B18C@pch.net> <6C90E4DA-23F7-49A2-A932-61513FBD31D0@ianai.net> Message-ID: <460F19B3-60EA-4961-825C-0AA98765E037@pch.net> On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote: > Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. Just the opposite. Exactly, not a criticism; PeeringDB’s focus is on peers, not on IXPs. The IXP Directory’s focus is on IXPs, not peers. Different needs, different data collected, etc. > Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says "177" under “participants" Interesting. We pull automatically from the standard URL, https://www.seattleix.net/participants/table but have to try to uniq it to not double-count organizations that are peering under multiple ASNs, who are peering on multiple subnets, etc. Because we’re doing that 400 times per day, it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.). The SIX is reporting 194 unique ASNs and 195 unique organization names. Presumably we have some rules that are detecting that AS42 and AS3856, for instance, are the same organization and consolidating those. I’ll have our IXPdir maintenance staff take a look at where the differences lie, and whether any of those rules need to be updated. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/de97b1de/attachment.pgp> From patrick at ianai.net Wed Jul 9 20:15:15 2014 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 16:15:15 -0400 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <460F19B3-60EA-4961-825C-0AA98765E037@pch.net> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> <63C6B422-48B8-4FC1-8A64-9A26F009B18C@pch.net> <6C90E4DA-23F7-49A2-A932-61513FBD31D0@ianai.net> <460F19B3-60EA-4961-825C-0AA98765E037@pch.net> Message-ID: <F7B1E944-7242-4F01-8CB0-1CC7E51C0F38@ianai.net> On Jul 09, 2014, at 16:03 , Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote: >> Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says "177" under “participants" > > Interesting. We pull automatically from the standard URL, https://www.seattleix.net/participants/table but have to try to uniq it to not double-count organizations that are peering under multiple ASNs, who are peering on multiple subnets, etc. Because we’re doing that 400 times per day, it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.). > > The SIX is reporting 194 unique ASNs and 195 unique organization names. Presumably we have some rules that are detecting that AS42 and AS3856, for instance, are the same organization and consolidating those. I’ll have our IXPdir maintenance staff take a look at where the differences lie, and whether any of those rules need to be updated. Is that a good idea? For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with as42 (because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I get the same data as peering with both? It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the same prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of the other does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV). -- TTFN, patrick -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 535 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/272697d9/attachment.pgp> From woody at pch.net Wed Jul 9 21:10:18 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:10:18 -0700 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <F7B1E944-7242-4F01-8CB0-1CC7E51C0F38@ianai.net> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <8659CE28-13C4-49C9-9E54-E82B205D2864@zaidali.com> <63C6B422-48B8-4FC1-8A64-9A26F009B18C@pch.net> <6C90E4DA-23F7-49A2-A932-61513FBD31D0@ianai.net> <460F19B3-60EA-4961-825C-0AA98765E037@pch.net> <F7B1E944-7242-4F01-8CB0-1CC7E51C0F38@ianai.net> Message-ID: <07ED8519-BF51-4DA6-A6A7-845D6FEBB1AD@pch.net> On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote: > On Jul 09, 2014, at 16:03 , Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote: >> it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.). > > Is that a good idea? > > For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with as42 (because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I get the same data as peering with both? > > It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the same prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of the other does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV). There are a lot of these things that seem self-evident to a human in specific cases, but when you write a rule to implement the apparently-self-evident-specific-case, it winds up creating something unanticipated elsewhere. The more you try to have common code that gets applied uniformly across multiple tools, the more you wind up with unexpected results. So, there are times when people want to know that AS42 and AS3856 are both PCH, and there are times when they want to know that they’re different ASes with different routing policies. I’ll report back when I know whether or how we’re over-uniquing that number. In all likelihood, we’re applying a ruleset that’s used in multiple tools, and someone thought it made sense to aggregate more in a different tool. But that’s just speculation, and I’ll know more when our staff who maintain that have finished looking through that section of code and get back to me. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/205ede68/attachment.pgp> From paul at paulstewart.org Wed Jul 9 21:57:47 2014 From: paul at paulstewart.org (Paul Stewart) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:57:47 -0400 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> Message-ID: <CFE332CA.783D2%paul@paulstewart.org> I’ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google Maps) - just never got around to putting it online. Honestly I wasn’t sure if there was an interest in it :) Paul On 2014-07-09, 2:18 PM, "Dennis Burgess" <dmburgess at linktechs.net> wrote: >Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to >Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J > > > >Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- >Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> " > > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > > Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: >http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs ><skype:linktechs?call> > > -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com ><http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV >Whitespace > > > From wmaton at ottix.net Wed Jul 9 22:03:27 2014 From: wmaton at ottix.net (William F. Maton Sotomayor) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 18:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <CFE332CA.783D2%paul@paulstewart.org> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <CFE332CA.783D2%paul@paulstewart.org> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.03.1407091803190.9391@iskra.ottix.net> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Paul Stewart wrote: > I?ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google > Maps) - just never got around to putting it online. Honestly I wasn?t > sure if there was an interest in it :) chop-chop! :) > > Paul > > > On 2014-07-09, 2:18 PM, "Dennis Burgess" <dmburgess at linktechs.net> wrote: > >> Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to >> Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J >> >> >> >> Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- >> Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> " >> >> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services >> >> Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: >> http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs >> <skype:linktechs?call> >> >> -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com >> <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV >> Whitespace >> >> >> > > > wfms From surfer at mauigateway.com Thu Jul 10 00:02:30 2014 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:02:30 -0700 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... Message-ID: <20140709170230.19256520@m0005309.ppops.net> --- LarrySheldon at cox.net wrote: http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?" ----------------------------------------------- I get: 403 Forbidden nginx/1.0.15 ------------------------------------------ http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png ---------------------------------------- not much there. -------------------------------------- http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-arctic-icebreaker/ -------------------------------------- works These prices are low if it's INMARSAT. We pay ~$7/minute. If they have their own Ku-band (hopefully not as 12-18Ghz has a lot of rain fade) that seems high. C-band (4-8Ghz) on ships is much better. Not a lot of perks for being bored out at sea for long periods of time. scott From wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com Thu Jul 10 00:38:39 2014 From: wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com (Warren Bailey) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:38:39 +0000 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... In-Reply-To: <20140709170230.19256520@m0005309.ppops.net> References: <20140709170230.19256520@m0005309.ppops.net> Message-ID: <ll83mf4kyf5g42nkwr2vse5r.1404952714086@email.android.com> 3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band and probably about 12k a month on ku if you find someone with good water coverage (ge23 is a good example of a killer oceanic spacecraft). The auto stabilized antenna (at least 1.8m but preferably larger up to 3.6)is going to start at 40k and end at 200 for the giant ones. Then.. You have to find a provider that doesn't suck. And there are literally 3 in the entire world that don't completely suck. I won't get started on pricing for planes.. ;) Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> Date: 07/09/2014 5:05 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... --- LarrySheldon at cox.net wrote: http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?" ----------------------------------------------- I get: 403 Forbidden nginx/1.0.15 ------------------------------------------ http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png ---------------------------------------- not much there. -------------------------------------- http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-arctic-icebreaker/ -------------------------------------- works These prices are low if it's INMARSAT. We pay ~$7/minute. If they have their own Ku-band (hopefully not as 12-18Ghz has a lot of rain fade) that seems high. C-band (4-8Ghz) on ships is much better. Not a lot of perks for being bored out at sea for long periods of time. scott From surfer at mauigateway.com Thu Jul 10 00:53:46 2014 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:53:46 -0700 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... Message-ID: <20140709175346.19256FF4@m0005309.ppops.net> --- wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: From: Warren Bailey <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com> 3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band ----------------------------------------------------------- There're 43200 minutes in a month. Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps link, so I used 1/2 of your $16K. Divide the $8K by 43200 and I get 18 cents per minute. Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2. It looks like they use Iridium. Here is some pricing. Just the first thing I found: http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html Plan Monthly Amount Monthly Allowance Cost per 1000 Bytes Plan SBD 0 $27.00 0 Bytes $1.15 Plan SBD 12 $35.10 10,000 Bytes $1.05 Plan LBS 8* $28.78 8,000 Bytes $1.78 scott From wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com Thu Jul 10 00:56:54 2014 From: wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com (Warren Bailey) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:56:54 +0000 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... In-Reply-To: <20140709175346.19256FF4@m0005309.ppops.net> References: <20140709175346.19256FF4@m0005309.ppops.net> Message-ID: <susc1rtgdnvgmww0um6m2g3o.1404953808654@email.android.com> Sure, Bro. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> Date: 07/09/2014 5:55 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... --- wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: From: Warren Bailey <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com> 3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band ----------------------------------------------------------- There're 43200 minutes in a month. Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps link, so I used 1/2 of your $16K. Divide the $8K by 43200 and I get 18 cents per minute. Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2. It looks like they use Iridium. Here is some pricing. Just the first thing I found: http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html Plan Monthly Amount Monthly Allowance Cost per 1000 Bytes Plan SBD 0 $27.00 0 Bytes $1.15 Plan SBD 12 $35.10 10,000 Bytes $1.05 Plan LBS 8* $28.78 8,000 Bytes $1.78 scott From bill at herrin.us Thu Jul 10 02:24:26 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:24:26 -0400 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... In-Reply-To: <20140709175346.19256FF4@m0005309.ppops.net> References: <20140709175346.19256FF4@m0005309.ppops.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGU80GH6c3394h84TD4SrTmxA7SOfJtWAsMVtkacL7yC+w@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote: > Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps > Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2. It looks like they use > Iridium. Here is some pricing. Just the first thing I found: > > http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html > > Plan Monthly Amount Monthly Allowance Cost per 1000 Bytes > Plan SBD 0 $27.00 0 Bytes $1.15 > Plan SBD 12 $35.10 10,000 Bytes $1.05 > Plan LBS 8* $28.78 8,000 Bytes $1.78 Hi Scott, If it's Iridium they aren't doing 1.5mbps. Iridium has Short Burst Data (SBD), a messaging service capable of sending and receiving a 2kB message a couple times a minute and they have RUDICS, a 1200bps or 2400bps (not kbps or mbps) synchronous serial service. They also have a product which gangs enough RUDICS channels together to get a 56k modem speed. Higher speed claims are "with compression." SBD is not used for Internet access, though it can be used for email. It's messaging, not packet data. What Iridium does have is coverage. Everywhere. Including both poles. They use a couple constellations of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites with honest to god packet routing across the satellites to the ground stations. You don't need a stabilized high-gain antenna to talk to the satellites (they're only 500 miles up) and you don't have to be in the same footprint as a ground station. Basically, they're flying cell phone towers circa the mid-90's with microwave relays between them. This is very different from something like, let's say, Inmarsat. Inmarsat's satellites sit out at geostationary orbit, 23,000 miles away. More, they're a "bent-pipe" configuration. Your signal goes up on one radio frequency, is analog-shifted and comes back down at another radio frequency to the ground station that shares the footprint. On the other hand, since they're simple analog amps they've been able to recognize the kind of gains from tech that improved 9600bps phone lines to 7mbps DSL lines, and because they're not routing between satellites, each bird they fly has its own complete bandwidth. But I suspect an arctic icebreaker isn't using Inmarsat, with or without a stabilized three-meter antenna. Geostationary satellites have to fly around the equator. They wouldn't be stationary relative to the surface if they didn't. So, they kinda have trouble seeing the poles. There's also the odd fish like Globalstar. They have LEO satellites that are bent-pipes. This gives them limited coverage, and it's kinda weird -- your signal actually hits multiple satellites and ground stations and has to be deduped. Still, where it works it seems to work. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ............ Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From rs at seastrom.com Thu Jul 10 02:37:03 2014 From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:37:03 -0400 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> (Dennis Burgess's message of "Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:18:13 -0500") References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> Message-ID: <86wqbmym5s.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> "Dennis Burgess" <dmburgess at linktechs.net> writes: > Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to > Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J "Similar to Torx in Toronto", assuming you're OK with 4 points instead of 6, would be Robertson/Scrulox. Get 'em at Canadian Tire. -r From joelja at bogus.com Thu Jul 10 05:19:13 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:19:13 -0700 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU80GH6c3394h84TD4SrTmxA7SOfJtWAsMVtkacL7yC+w@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140709175346.19256FF4@m0005309.ppops.net> <CAP-guGU80GH6c3394h84TD4SrTmxA7SOfJtWAsMVtkacL7yC+w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53BE2251.6040508@bogus.com> On 7/9/14 7:24 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote: >> Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps >> Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2. It looks like they use >> Iridium. Here is some pricing. Just the first thing I found: >> >> http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html >> >> Plan Monthly Amount Monthly Allowance Cost per 1000 Bytes >> Plan SBD 0 $27.00 0 Bytes $1.15 >> Plan SBD 12 $35.10 10,000 Bytes $1.05 >> Plan LBS 8* $28.78 8,000 Bytes $1.78 > Hi Scott, > > If it's Iridium they aren't doing 1.5mbps. Iridium has Short Burst > Data (SBD), a messaging service capable of sending and receiving a 2kB > message a couple times a minute and they have RUDICS, a 1200bps or > 2400bps (not kbps or mbps) synchronous serial service. They also have > a product which gangs enough RUDICS channels together to get a 56k > modem speed. Higher speed claims are "with compression." Russian Satellite Communications Company operates geostationary satellites as part of intelsat and eutelsat. Molniya insorfar as I'm aware still exists and is a constellation of high elliptical orbit communications satellites with a 12 hour orbit, it's specifically useful over the poles. in one of the photos on the orignal live journal is an inmarsat terminal onbaord the vessel. http://nikitskij.livejournal.com/ the ship is the icebreaker yamal which at 23000 tons is a pretty big platform to mount hardware on. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 286 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140709/0d734c9c/attachment.pgp> From chipps at chipps.com Thu Jul 10 00:49:58 2014 From: chipps at chipps.com (Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:49:58 -0500 Subject: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... In-Reply-To: <ll83mf4kyf5g42nkwr2vse5r.1404952714086@email.android.com> References: <20140709170230.19256520@m0005309.ppops.net> <ll83mf4kyf5g42nkwr2vse5r.1404952714086@email.android.com> Message-ID: <006e01cf9bd8$e0104e80$a030eb80$@chipps.com> Which providers would this be? "And there are literally 3 in the entire world that don't completely suck." -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Warren Bailey Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:39 PM To: surfer at mauigateway.com; nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... 3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band and probably about 12k a month on ku if you find someone with good water coverage (ge23 is a good example of a killer oceanic spacecraft). The auto stabilized antenna (at least 1.8m but preferably larger up to 3.6)is going to start at 40k and end at 200 for the giant ones. Then.. You have to find a provider that doesn't suck. And there are literally 3 in the entire world that don't completely suck. I won't get started on pricing for planes.. ;) Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> Date: 07/09/2014 5:05 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting... --- LarrySheldon at cox.net wrote: http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystem s001-37.jpg In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?" ----------------------------------------------- I get: 403 Forbidden nginx/1.0.15 ------------------------------------------ http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee6 9e6f5e5e9729de4e.png ---------------------------------------- not much there. -------------------------------------- http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the- arctic-icebreaker/ -------------------------------------- works These prices are low if it's INMARSAT. We pay ~$7/minute. If they have their own Ku-band (hopefully not as 12-18Ghz has a lot of rain fade) that seems high. C-band (4-8Ghz) on ships is much better. Not a lot of perks for being bored out at sea for long periods of time. scott From kraig at l2net.com Thu Jul 10 07:14:40 2014 From: kraig at l2net.com (Kraig Beahn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:14:40 -0400 Subject: Comcast Outages? Message-ID: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> Anyone in the SE seeing and/or hearing of any massive Comcast outages regionally? (Fiber, Voice & DOCSIS modems from Atlanta, GA to Tallahassee, FL and in some select areas Jacksonville, FL...) From youssef at 720.fr Thu Jul 10 07:53:27 2014 From: youssef at 720.fr (Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:53:27 +0200 Subject: Listing or google map of peering exchange In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.03.1407091434030.9391@iskra.ottix.net> References: <50710E9A7E64454C974049FC998EB65501B24548@03-exchange.lti.local> <alpine.DEB.2.03.1407091434030.9391@iskra.ottix.net> Message-ID: <CALHo_yA3RTt+usxk8crJNY_=wT4u1Oa6Bv9TYHBvkbZ6vnnKNQ@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Kindly provided by the Telegeography team : http://www.internetexchangemap.com/ Hope this helps. Y. 2014-07-09 20:34 GMT+02:00 William F. Maton Sotomayor <wmaton at ottix.net>: > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Dennis Burgess wrote: > > Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to >> Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J >> > > Telegeography may have this > > or: > > https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/ > > > >> >> >> Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- >> Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> " >> >> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services >> >> Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: >> http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs >> <skype:linktechs?call> >> >> -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com >> <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV >> Whitespace >> >> >> >> >> > wfms > -- Youssef BENGELLOUN-ZAHR From sh.vahabzadeh at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 09:47:22 2014 From: sh.vahabzadeh at gmail.com (Shahab Vahabzadeh) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:17:22 +0430 Subject: DHCP Server ACS Parameters on Huawei 5300 and 5600 DSLAM Message-ID: <CAGqGmqb4+GZmLnqU-wHFFx+pAn1DFc2Tbtj52sm=5qLNvrrwiQ@mail.gmail.com> Hello Everybody, Does any body has experience about running DHCP Server on Huawei DSLAMs? We wanna run TR069 on our network, We need a DHCP server to pass ACS parameters. Like ACS URL, ACS Username and Password. Thanks -- Regards, Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator Cell Phone: +1 (415) 871 0742 PGP Key Fingerprint = 8E34 B335 D702 0CA7 5A81 C2EE 76A2 46C2 5367 BF90 From bross at pobox.com Thu Jul 10 11:38:59 2014 From: bross at pobox.com (Brandon Ross) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comcast Outages? In-Reply-To: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1407100737270.57697@brugal.local> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Kraig Beahn wrote: > Anyone in the SE seeing and/or hearing of any massive Comcast outages > regionally? > > (Fiber, Voice & DOCSIS modems from Atlanta, GA to Tallahassee, FL and in > some select areas Jacksonville, FL...) Yes, I'm in Atlanta. I lost DOCSIS Internet connectivity last night at just past midnight Eastern. I didn't bother troubleshooting and just went to bed. This morning I still had no access, but a power cycle of my cable modem restored connectivity. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross From blueneon at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 12:39:29 2014 From: blueneon at gmail.com (Tom Morris) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:39:29 -0400 Subject: Comcast Outages? In-Reply-To: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEZ7Lt3cbuB3zCjXa2umpk3X0MpVB1JC+GkYob=zmsD0CyV5UA@mail.gmail.com> I had lightning strikes ditch my fiber connections twice yesterday, but you can't blame the network on the big angry hammer of Thor. At least the poor guy who was directly below where lightning nailed our site was already on the toilet......!! On Jul 10, 2014 3:16 AM, "Kraig Beahn" <kraig at l2net.com> wrote: > Anyone in the SE seeing and/or hearing of any massive Comcast outages > regionally? > > (Fiber, Voice & DOCSIS modems from Atlanta, GA to Tallahassee, FL and in > some select areas Jacksonville, FL...) > From jim at jaguNET.com Thu Jul 10 12:55:01 2014 From: jim at jaguNET.com (Jim Jagielski) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:55:01 -0400 Subject: Comcast Outages? In-Reply-To: <CAEZ7Lt3cbuB3zCjXa2umpk3X0MpVB1JC+GkYob=zmsD0CyV5UA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZ7Lt3cbuB3zCjXa2umpk3X0MpVB1JC+GkYob=zmsD0CyV5UA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140710125501.GA86547@devsys.jaguNET.com> In NE Maryland, Comcast has been down for 36hours. No idea how widespread that is. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 08:39:29AM -0400, Tom Morris wrote: > I had lightning strikes ditch my fiber connections twice yesterday, but you > can't blame the network on the big angry hammer of Thor. > > At least the poor guy who was directly below where lightning nailed our > site was already on the toilet......!! > On Jul 10, 2014 3:16 AM, "Kraig Beahn" <kraig at l2net.com> wrote: > > > Anyone in the SE seeing and/or hearing of any massive Comcast outages > > regionally? > > > > (Fiber, Voice & DOCSIS modems from Atlanta, GA to Tallahassee, FL and in > > some select areas Jacksonville, FL...) > > -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim at jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams From coy.hile at coyhile.com Thu Jul 10 13:04:46 2014 From: coy.hile at coyhile.com (coy.hile at coyhile.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:04:46 -0400 Subject: Comcast Outages? In-Reply-To: <20140710125501.GA86547@devsys.jaguNET.com> References: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZ7Lt3cbuB3zCjXa2umpk3X0MpVB1JC+GkYob=zmsD0CyV5UA@mail.gmail.com> <20140710125501.GA86547@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: <2386E6BF-618C-4C44-947D-B1EE79C230FB@coyhile.com> In the Philly area (lower bucks for the locals), we were down most all of Tuesday, but back up sometime between 2300 Tuesday and 0700 Wednesday when I next logged in. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:55, Jim Jagielski <jim at jagunet.com> wrote: > > In NE Maryland, Comcast has been down for 36hours. No idea how > widespread that is. > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 08:39:29AM -0400, Tom Morris wrote: >> I had lightning strikes ditch my fiber connections twice yesterday, but you >> can't blame the network on the big angry hammer of Thor. >> >> At least the poor guy who was directly below where lightning nailed our >> site was already on the toilet......!! >>> On Jul 10, 2014 3:16 AM, "Kraig Beahn" <kraig at l2net.com> wrote: >>> >>> Anyone in the SE seeing and/or hearing of any massive Comcast outages >>> regionally? >>> >>> (Fiber, Voice & DOCSIS modems from Atlanta, GA to Tallahassee, FL and in >>> some select areas Jacksonville, FL...) > > -- > =========================================================================== > Jim Jagielski [|] jim at jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ > "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams From jacques.latour at cira.ca Thu Jul 10 14:41:12 2014 From: jacques.latour at cira.ca (Jacques Latour) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:41:12 +0000 Subject: .ca anycast expansion Message-ID: <C059877D829F76429F49E0B48705D888903FC7AE@EXCH-01.CORP.CIRA.CA> Hi all! At .ca, we're currently working on expanding our .ca anycast infrastructure (any.ca-servers.ca) on ASN 55195 - 199.4.144.0/24. For now, we're looking to expand in colocation centers (IXP connected) in the following locations: - NOTA - NAP of the Americas Miami, FL - CoreSite - Any2 California - Los Angeles, CA - AMSIX - Amsterdam - Equinix Singapore Looking for ½ rack and ability to connect to HE transit and IXP x-connect. Please reply off-list, Thanks, Jack From elouie at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 18:29:17 2014 From: elouie at yahoo.com (Eric A Louie) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:29:17 -0700 Subject: MPLS product offering questions Message-ID: <1405016957.97017.YahooMailNeo@web181606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> My company is investigating offering MPLS service in a very limited regional area. We're interested in any input in the following: Pricing strategy Order form Operational considerations Service level agreements If you have something to offer, on or off-list responses are invited. thanks Eric From jared at puck.nether.net Thu Jul 10 19:29:15 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:29:15 -0400 Subject: 701 contact please? Message-ID: <649CC607-263D-4C22-A1A8-D9127D365003@puck.nether.net> Can someone from 701 contact me off-list? - Jared From jra at baylink.com Thu Jul 10 20:01:43 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <30603440.5812.1405022176123.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix. Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the Real World... but I did in fact read it. Yup. The money quote: One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only ones that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these other transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was adequate capacity for their traffic to enter our network. "their traffic". What, Verizon: Netflix is just sending you that traffic uninvited? No: that's *your customers traffic*. You *knew* that there would be asymmetrical amounts of traffic flowing downhill to your customers, *or you wouldn't have provisioned nearly uniformly asymmetrical last mile links to them*. You just lost the bet on how much traffic that would be. That's why they call it gambling: sometimes you lose. You lost. Man up and provision usable peering. That traffic is your responsiblity. If you decided not to charge your customers enough to provision for it, take it out of retained earnings. Just don't try to convince us all that, somehow, that traffic flow isn't your customers traffic, and thus yours. Netflix's only fault is being popular. http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 10 20:58:47 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <30603440.5812.1405022176123.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1QxpC+inVtTqOmi_rQ7Th_WNK7z7mAOLPuvOpYKO44Ew@mail.gmail.com> Some good discussion on this at the recent Aspen Institute Net Neutrality panel. http://youtu.be/IEKQmVuqXsg On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix. > > Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN > says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the > Real World... but I did in fact read it. > > Yup. > > The money quote: > > One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only > ones > that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these > other > transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was > adequate > capacity for their traffic to enter our network. > > "their traffic". > > What, Verizon: Netflix is just sending you that traffic uninvited? > > No: that's *your customers traffic*. You *knew* that there would be > asymmetrical amounts of traffic flowing downhill to your customers, > *or you wouldn't have provisioned nearly uniformly asymmetrical last > mile links to them*. > > You just lost the bet on how much traffic that would be. > > That's why they call it gambling: sometimes you lose. You lost. > Man up and provision usable peering. That traffic is your responsiblity. > If you decided not to charge your customers enough to provision for > it, take it out of retained earnings. > > Just don't try to convince us all that, somehow, that traffic flow isn't > your customers traffic, and thus yours. Netflix's only fault is being > popular. > > > > http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 11 00:53:02 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:53:02 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> Jay Ashworth wrote: > Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix. > > Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN > says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the > Real World... but I did in fact read it. > > Yup. > > The money quote: > > One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only ones > that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these other > transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was adequate > capacity for their traffic to enter our network. > > "their traffic". > > What, Verizon: Netflix is just sending you that traffic uninvited? > > No: that's *your customers traffic*. You *knew* that there would be > asymmetrical amounts of traffic flowing downhill to your customers, > *or you wouldn't have provisioned nearly uniformly asymmetrical last > mile links to them*. > Let me preface this by saying that I'm in no way an apologist for Verizon - I've spent a lot of my life in the municipal networking world, and Verizon's lobbying against muncipal fiber builds makes them the enemy in many regards. But, as a FIOS customer, I'm impressed by their levels of service, and as a network engineer and policy wonk it seems only fair to point out the following: Verizon is claiming that delays between Netflix and FIOS customers result from a) the transit network between Netflix and Verizon being congested, and/or b) the connection between the transit network and Verizon is congested. A little experimentation validates this: Traffic from my FIOS home router flows through alter.net and xo.net before hitting netflix. Now alter.net is now owned by Verizon, but when I run traceroutes, I see all the delays starting halfway through XO's network -- so why is nobody pointing a finger at XO? I'll also note that traffic to/from google, and youtube (also google of course) seems to flow FIOS - alter.net - google -- with no delays. So again, why aren't Netflix and Verizon pointing their fingers at XO. This is the classic asymmetric peering situation - which raises a legitimate question of who's responsible for paying for the costs of transit service and interconnections? And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't buying a direct feed into either alter.net or FIOS POPs, and/or making use of a caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis. Personally, I think Netflix is screwing the pooch on this one, and pointing the finger at Verizon as a convenient fall guy. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 11 01:00:29 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:00:29 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> > And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a > caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do > on a routine basis. they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any network randy From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 11 01:12:02 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:12:02 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> Randy Bush wrote: >> And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a >> caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do >> on a routine basis. > they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any > network > > At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 01:20:21 2014 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:20:21 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: [snip] > At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content > providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... Netflix own website indicates otherwise. https://www.netflix.com/openconnect "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network." -- -JH From jimpop at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 01:21:26 2014 From: jimpop at gmail.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:21:26 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAGfsgR3VHkDYz_Bg8aseQstufy+p1_1CHUeo--ebyGDV1s_nXQ@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: >>> >>> And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a >>> caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do >>> on a routine basis. >> >> they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any >> network >> >> > > At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content > providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > > Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it > would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between > the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes > to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. I was going to sit on the sidelines.... but... Take Netflix out of the equation and google things like "tf2 verizon fios" or any other game. Who do you point the finger at then? -Jim P. From contact at winterei.se Fri Jul 11 01:28:54 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:28:54 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGfsgR3VHkDYz_Bg8aseQstufy+p1_1CHUeo--ebyGDV1s_nXQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAGfsgR3VHkDYz_Bg8aseQstufy+p1_1CHUeo--ebyGDV1s_nXQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53BF3DD6.60804@winterei.se> Unless said tf2 server happens to be hosted within UU's own network, I'd imagine the blame would go to whichever party in the transit path refused to upgrade their commitments. On 7/11/2014 午前 10:21, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> Randy Bush wrote: >>>> And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a >>>> caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do >>>> on a routine basis. >>> they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any >>> network >>> >>> >> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content >> providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... >> >> Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it >> would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between >> the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes >> to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. > I was going to sit on the sidelines.... but... > > Take Netflix out of the equation and google things like "tf2 verizon > fios" or any other game. Who do you point the finger at then? > > -Jim P. From mpetach at netflight.com Fri Jul 11 01:35:10 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:35:10 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > >> And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a >>> caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do >>> on a routine basis. >>> >> they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any >> network >> >> >> > At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most > content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > Uh, yeah, you've already been corrected on that score, no need to spank you again for that one... > Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly > it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service > between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when > it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more > efficient) pipes. So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference). At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them." > > Miles Fidelman > Matt From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 11 01:40:13 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:40:13 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> Randy Bush wrote: > [snip] >> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content >> providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > Netflix own website indicates otherwise. > https://www.netflix.com/openconnect > > "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. > ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet > exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free > storage appliances in or near their network." > > From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/) -------- At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Netflix's only fault is being popular. Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is not at all the case. Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free and to build out network connections for which it should be footing the bill. (Netflix told us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we should pay $10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 miles, to one of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other streaming provider.) It then launches misleading PR campaigns against ISPs that dare to object to this behavior. We tell prospective customers that we provide a guaranteed amount of capacity for them to the nearest major Internet hub. However, because Netflix does not have a presence at that hub, has failed to invest in adequate infrastructure, will not build out to our ISP as it has to larger ones such as Comcast, and needlessly wastes network capacity, they may or may not get adequate performance. --Brett Glass ----- -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From ktims at stargate.ca Fri Jul 11 01:50:49 2014 From: ktims at stargate.ca (Keenan Tims) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:50:49 +0000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <497fda6f7da54643b8f6ea44b43cddc4@STCOEX01.stargate.local> > A little experimentation validates this: Traffic from my FIOS home router > flows through alter.net and xo.net before hitting netflix. Now alter.net is > now owned by Verizon, but when I run traceroutes, I see all the delays > starting halfway through XO's network -- so why is nobody pointing a finger > at XO? Traceroute is pretty meaningless for analyzing if there is congestion or not. The presence of delays could mean many things that don't indicate congestion. Most large networks are well managed internally; congestion almost always appears at network edges. In this case, the assertion is that XO's link to Verizon is congested. If that is in fact the case, it's because Verizon is running it hot. Verizon is (presumably) an XO customer, and it is on them to increase capacity or do network engineering such that their links are upgraded or traffic shifted elsewhere. It's worth pointing out that if Verizon is running a transit link hot like this, Netflix is not the only traffic that's going to be impacted, and that is in no way Netflix' fault. Even if it is a peering link, their dispute should be with XO. What people seem to miss here is that there is no other out for $ISP than a) increase transit capacity, b) sufficiently peer with $CONTENT or c) allow performance to degrade (ie. Don't give customers what they are paying for). If we take c) off the table, it tells us that settlement-free peering would be the preferred alternative as it would usually cost less than buying more transit. > I'll also note that traffic to/from google, and youtube (also google of > course) seems to flow FIOS - alter.net - google -- with no delays. So again, > why aren't Netflix and Verizon pointing their fingers at XO. Verizon (apparently) refuses to peer with Netflix, since Netflix has an open polic. They do, however, appear to peer with Google. Why? > This is the classic asymmetric peering situation - which raises a legitimate > question of who's responsible for paying for the costs of transit service and > interconnections? If this were a question of Verizon transiting traffic for Netflix asymmetrically, then sure. However they are terminating the traffic in question, the only "transit" is to a paying Verizon customer on Verizon equipment; this is the part of the network their customer pays them to maintain. > And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't buying a direct feed into > either alter.net or FIOS POPs, and/or making use of a caching network like > Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis. They likely can already meet easily at many points across the country, with little cost to either party. It is quite obvious that Netflix is very open to doing so. Why doesn't Verizon want to play? Apparently because they think they can successfully convince users that the problem is Netflix' and not Verizon's. Content peering with eyeballs should be a no-brainer - it saves both parties plenty of money and improves performance across the board. Netflix seems willing to bring their traffic to Verizon's edge for free, all Verizon needs to do is turn up the ports and build whatever capacity they would need to build anyway regardless of where the traffic comes from or what it is. Or, if the power and space is cheaper than the transport from where they meet (or to where they can meet), they can install Netflix' appliances. They always have the option of just buying more transit too, but the bottom line is that this expansion is required to carry their customer's traffic, it's not something they would be trying to charge content/transit for if it were organic traffic growth from diverse sources, they would simply upgrade their network like the rest of us. Keenan > > Personally, I think Netflix is screwing the pooch on this one, and pointing the > finger at Verizon as a convenient fall guy. > > Miles Fidelman > > > > > > > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From brian at aereo.com Fri Jul 11 02:06:57 2014 From: brian at aereo.com (Brian Loveland) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 22:06:57 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <497fda6f7da54643b8f6ea44b43cddc4@STCOEX01.stargate.local> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <497fda6f7da54643b8f6ea44b43cddc4@STCOEX01.stargate.local> Message-ID: <CAKu7voNvByostijfmdZyweQn6FtAg3KS3X5wxqezCMUXMLgANA@mail.gmail.com> In what world is Verizon an XO customer? But I think the whole premise of blaming XO is broken, just because your traceroute shows inbound to Netflix via XO does not mean Netflix is sending bits to you via XO. If you are sitting on AS701, Netflix certainly has many routes with aspath length = 2 (Transit, VZB) and its going to be pretty hard to know what path they are taking into VZB for yourself. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Keenan Tims <ktims at stargate.ca> wrote: > > A little experimentation validates this: Traffic from my FIOS home > router > > flows through alter.net and xo.net before hitting netflix. Now alter.net > is > > now owned by Verizon, but when I run traceroutes, I see all the delays > > starting halfway through XO's network -- so why is nobody pointing a > finger > > at XO? > > Traceroute is pretty meaningless for analyzing if there is congestion or > not. The presence of delays could mean many things that don't indicate > congestion. Most large networks are well managed internally; congestion > almost always appears at network edges. > > In this case, the assertion is that XO's link to Verizon is congested. If > that is in fact the case, it's because Verizon is running it hot. Verizon > is (presumably) an XO customer, and it is on them to increase capacity or > do network engineering such that their links are upgraded or traffic > shifted elsewhere. It's worth pointing out that if Verizon is running a > transit link hot like this, Netflix is not the only traffic that's going to > be impacted, and that is in no way Netflix' fault. Even if it is a peering > link, their dispute should be with XO. > > What people seem to miss here is that there is no other out for $ISP than > a) increase transit capacity, b) sufficiently peer with $CONTENT or c) > allow performance to degrade (ie. Don't give customers what they are paying > for). If we take c) off the table, it tells us that settlement-free peering > would be the preferred alternative as it would usually cost less than > buying more transit. > > > I'll also note that traffic to/from google, and youtube (also google of > > course) seems to flow FIOS - alter.net - google -- with no delays. So > again, > > why aren't Netflix and Verizon pointing their fingers at XO. > > Verizon (apparently) refuses to peer with Netflix, since Netflix has an > open polic. They do, however, appear to peer with Google. Why? > > > This is the classic asymmetric peering situation - which raises a > legitimate > > question of who's responsible for paying for the costs of transit > service and > > interconnections? > > If this were a question of Verizon transiting traffic for Netflix > asymmetrically, then sure. However they are terminating the traffic in > question, the only "transit" is to a paying Verizon customer on Verizon > equipment; this is the part of the network their customer pays them to > maintain. > > > And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't buying a direct feed into > > either alter.net or FIOS POPs, and/or making use of a caching network > like > > Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis. > > They likely can already meet easily at many points across the country, > with little cost to either party. It is quite obvious that Netflix is very > open to doing so. Why doesn't Verizon want to play? Apparently because they > think they can successfully convince users that the problem is Netflix' and > not Verizon's. Content peering with eyeballs should be a no-brainer - it > saves both parties plenty of money and improves performance across the > board. Netflix seems willing to bring their traffic to Verizon's edge for > free, all Verizon needs to do is turn up the ports and build whatever > capacity they would need to build anyway regardless of where the traffic > comes from or what it is. Or, if the power and space is cheaper than the > transport from where they meet (or to where they can meet), they can > install Netflix' appliances. They always have the option of just buying > more transit too, but the bottom line is that this expansion is required to > carry their customer's traffic, it's not something they would be trying to > charge content/transit for if it were organic traffic growth from diverse > sources, they would simply upgrade their network like the rest of us. > > Keenan > > > > > Personally, I think Netflix is screwing the pooch on this one, and > pointing the > > finger at Verizon as a convenient fall guy. > > > > Miles Fidelman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > From mpetach at netflight.com Fri Jul 11 02:12:54 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:12:54 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Jimmy Hess wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> >>> Randy Bush wrote: >>> >> [snip] >> >>> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most >>> content >>> providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... >>> >> Netflix own website indicates otherwise. >> https://www.netflix.com/openconnect >> >> "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. >> ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet >> exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free >> storage appliances in or near their network." >> >> >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > http://www.lariat.net/) > > -------- > > > At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Netflix's only fault is being popular. >> > > Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is not > at all the case. > > Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then > refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. I'm sorry. You cannot take that sentence... > It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front > doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more > than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first > questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream > Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free ...together with this sentence, without hitting a WTF moment. He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how much Netflix may try to force them on you? I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency meds before writing that paragraph. If you like caching, you should be happy when someone offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to have traffic that isn't being cached. Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same paragraph is just...dizzying. Matt From rubensk at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 02:38:42 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:38:42 -0300 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <30603440.5812.1405022176123.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k369xFq6V08jQ5-0bPBuk5_Z7_Jc-qXks9H1c+4m5zZqw@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix. > > Now, just as a matter of principle, I tend to assume that anything VZN > says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the > Real World... but I did in fact read it. > > Yup. > > The money quote: > > One might wonder why Netflix and its transit providers were the only > ones > that ran into congestion issues. What it boils down to is this: these > other > transit and content providers took steps to ensure that there was > adequate > capacity for their traffic to enter our network. > Translation: if Netflix is paying Comcast, why not pay us(Verizon) ? Rubens From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 11 02:40:05 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:40:05 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <m2lhs062ka.wl%randy@psg.com> > Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same > paragraph is just...dizzying. if we filtered or otherwise prevented conjecturbation, jumping to conclusions based on misuse of tools, hyperbole, misinformation, fud, and downright lying, how would we know the list exploder was working? randy From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Fri Jul 11 02:45:02 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:45:02 +1000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <20140711024502.GM32153@hezmatt.org> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jimmy Hess wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman > ><mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > >>Randy Bush wrote: > >[snip] > >>At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content > >>providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > >Netflix own website indicates otherwise. > >https://www.netflix.com/openconnect > > > >"ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. > >ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet > >exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free > >storage appliances in or near their network." > > From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > http://www.lariat.net/) I've got to say, I'm not overly impressed by his commentary. It's vague and non-specific, and doesn't provide any meat by which an impartial observer could judge the claims. Hell, I'm a partial observer in *favour* of the little guy, and I'm underwhelmed. The thoughts that come to mind are inlined. > -------- > > Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic I agree that most movies and TV shows aren't worth watching, but that's a value judgment. "Redundant" perhaps, since everyone who watches the show gets their own stream, but unless your network is entirely multicast-ready, you're not exactly free of blame... Have you attempted to reach out to Netflix to discuss the concerns you have about the inefficiency? What was the response? > and then > refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. In what ways do they "refuse" to allow ISPs to cache? I can imagine that they don't like caching run by other people, because they can't control how well that caching is run (the charitable interpretation) or they don't get all of the eyeball data when data is cached (the more likely interpretation). Do they refuse to send traffic to your AS if they discover you caching their content? They'd actually be well within their rights to do so (on the principle of "their network, their content, their rules"), that seems implausible. > It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front > doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are > more than adequate. I'd be interested in seeing more data regarding this assertion. If your links aren't congested, and you're not buying transit that is congested somewhere upstream, the only remaining point of congestion would be somewhere inside Netflix. I'm not saying that isn't what's happening, but assuming that the entire Internet (or everyone who's getting Netflix bits out of the same upstream of Netflix) isn't seeing problems, then the problem inside Netflix seems... optimistic. > It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions > asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream > Netflix?") OK, they're popular. Are you advocating for a limit on how large a portion of a market a single company is allowed to service? The bit of this sentence that I find implausible is the idea that customers are sufficiently aware of quality of service issues to ask questions before purchasing. > in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free These are the OpenConnect caching boxes, I assume? If that's the case, it's incorrect to say that Netflix "refuses to allow [...] caching", simply that they prefer to provide caching their way. As it stands, I don't see the problem with running Netflix cacheboxes instead of your own -- if you *were* running the cache, you would presumably need to pay for hosting anyway (and also machines), so I'm not sure how OpenConnect is worse. If there are reasons why OpenConnect boxes *are* inferior to some other solution (such as if they take up 20 times the power and space of an equivalent caching solution), then those are what need to be talked about. > and > to build out network connections for which it should be footing the bill. > (Netflix told us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we > should pay $10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 > miles, to one of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other > streaming provider.) Is this simply because there is no "common Internet exchange" closer to Laramie, Wyoming? If so, then all I can say is that it sucks to be running a service in a remote part of the world, but you can hardly blame Netflix for that. > We tell prospective customers that we provide a guaranteed amount of > capacity for them to the nearest major Internet hub. I'd be interested to see a more detailed description of this situation -- where Lariat *does* have interconnection presence, and how "major" that "major Internet hub" is. If Netflix is, indeed, ignoring a major interconnect point, then it should be pretty easy to make that case and call "bullshit" on Netflix's claims. As it stands, though, there's not enough information to make any substantive assertion. > will not build out to our ISP as it has to larger > ones such as Comcast Is there a similar compelling commercial benefit for Netflix to build out to Laramie Internet Access and Telecommunications as there is to Comcast? If not, it would be extremely foolish (not to mentin potentially criminal) for Netflix to spend money on that. They're a for-profit company, they should only spend money on things that will make them even more money. I feel for Brett, and everyone else, running a small shop and getting the shaft from the big kids. I've been there, and it's no fun. The answer, though, is to get specific with facts and figures, and *prove* that the claims of Netflix are bullshit, rather than continue with vague assertions. They're better at the "vague assertions" game than you are. - Matt -- A woman in liquor production / Owns a still of exquisite construction. The alcohol boils / Through magnetic coils. She says that it's "proof by induction." -- http://limerickdb.com/?34 From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 11 02:52:15 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:52:15 +0900 Subject: paleolithic inquiry Message-ID: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> need to put a usr everything modem, yes a modem, using inbound ppp on a freebsd 10 box and a pots line. anyone have the hacks for o modem switch settings and o /etc/ppp/ppp.conf randy From nanog at jima.us Fri Jul 11 03:46:33 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:46:33 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: > From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > http://www.lariat.net/) While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/ As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best. Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. Jima From sam.silvester at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 04:02:43 2014 From: sam.silvester at gmail.com (Sam Silvester) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:32:43 +0930 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAAAhk6-p_yAHi++HtgzF=VDCZET=NxxmUT008Q5Rp-hiR01XSg@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net > wrote: > > From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't > know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/ > ) > > -------- > > Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then > refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. It fails to > provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then > blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate. > It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by > every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an > attempt to force them to host their servers for free and to build out > network connections for which it should be footing the bill. (Netflix told > us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we should pay > $10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 miles, to one > of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other streaming > provider.) It then launches misleading PR campaigns against ISPs that dare > to object to this behavior. > > --Brett Glass As I see it, Netflix seem to have provided a reasonable set of options to provide data to an ISP's customers: - Over a certain volume, they'll provide caches to be hosted within the eyeball AS - Under that volume, you can pick it up via peering IXes - If you don't peer with them anywhere, you can get it via transit The complaint here seems to be that Netflix won't build out to any/every/many smaller locations and/or pay to have their caches hosted. Appreciate that there may be different views, but I'd say Netflix provide a reasonable set of options here for the smaller ISP. I'd have thought factoring in the assorted costs to access Netflix content (building to a mutual peering IX vs. transit vs. the cost to run a local cache) would fall into the standard sort of analysis you'd make running an ISP same as when assessing if it makes sense to hosts a Google or Akamai cache. Sam From tfarrell at riotgames.com Fri Jul 11 02:23:05 2014 From: tfarrell at riotgames.com (Trent Farrell) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:23:05 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDtZn=GxHznPVchLB+yb22XO3Zu8Pig-rMUEGPXV8CquTfYPw@mail.gmail.com> Similar but much smaller scale issue that I'm having trying to deliver our content to access networks - small amount of traffic, heavily skewed outbound from our AS but massive amounts of players on these access networks - yet we're forced to pay said access networks to deliver our mutual customers for an optimal experience. So much double dipping. On Thursday, July 10, 2014, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Miles Fidelman < > mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Jimmy Hess wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman > >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >>> Randy Bush wrote: > >>> > >> [snip] > >> > >>> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most > >>> content > >>> providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > >>> > >> Netflix own website indicates otherwise. > >> https://www.netflix.com/openconnect > >> > >> "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. > >> ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet > >> exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free > >> storage appliances in or near their network." > >> > >> > >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > > don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > > http://www.lariat.net/) > > > > -------- > > > > > > At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > > Netflix's only fault is being popular. > >> > > > > Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is > not > > at all the case. > > > > Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then > > refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. > > > I'm sorry. You cannot take that sentence... > > > > It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front > > doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are > more > > than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first > > questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you > stream > > Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free > > > ...together with this sentence, without hitting a WTF > moment. > > He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic > and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to > grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching > boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really > can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes > *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; > isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? > Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes > are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how > much Netflix may try to force them on you? > > I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency > meds before writing that paragraph. > > If you like caching, you should be happy when someone > offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't > like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to > have traffic that isn't being cached. > > Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the > same paragraph is just...dizzying. > > Matt > -- *Trent Farrell* *Riot Games* *IP Network Engineer* E: tfarrell at riotgames.com | IE: +353 83 446 6809 | US: +1 424 285 9825 Summoner name: Foro From adam.vitkovsky at swan.sk Fri Jul 11 08:32:51 2014 From: adam.vitkovsky at swan.sk (=?utf-8?B?Vml0a292c2vDvSBBZGFt?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:32:51 +0000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew > Petach > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM > > > So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd > be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, > right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct > connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those > costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections > to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to > cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to > reference). > > At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't > scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, > my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to > end up cancelling my subscription to them." > > > Matt I disagree as all of this makes perfect sense. Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. And you goes: so you would like to become our customer? Sure this is the monthly fee for the link and transport service that would suite your needs. And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? What would be your answer? Of course this "good deal" has some precursors. If your customers fail to obey your statistical multiplexing predictions and links to your upstreams are running hot than you have several options. a) You could pay for the upgrades of links to your upstreams. b) You could take the "good deal" Netflix has proposed to save costs for a). c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes). What would you do? Options a) and b) assumes of course that Netflix has good connections to their upstreams and not misusing their position into forcing the customer relationship into free peering one. adam From me at geordish.org Fri Jul 11 09:27:17 2014 From: me at geordish.org (Dave Bell) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:27:17 +0100 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> Message-ID: <CACXVQYAih8nP+3wZKc4n7FBHSCwuDbA18QSoZYAGge7zADGfDg@mail.gmail.com> > Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. Yes. As an eyeball network operator I pay my transit provider to get the packets my customers want to me. Content providers pay their transit providers to get their packets to my customers. If there is a way we can cut out the transit provider, why wouldn't we? > And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? This isn't exactly how it goes though. Netflix are able to peer at around 25 locations in the US. The chances of a large ISP not having at least one common point are pretty slim. So then it goes down to an interconnect cost across a building. I'm in the UK, and I know the price that we pay is not very much at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix were willing to split the cost of this link. Then we are down to port costs. These days a 10G port costs very little indeed. And of course the larger you are, the more buying clout you have, the less it costs. Combined with the fact that you are taking traffic off your transit connection, therefore paying a smaller bill, it is very likely that this will work out in a profit situation. > c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes). This appears to be what Comcast, Verizon etc are doing. Instead of paying to receive the packets from their transit provider, they want to be paid to receive them instead. I wonder just how much the recent price increase from Netflix was to help fund the extortion they are being subjected to? Dave From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 11 13:28:57 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:28:57 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVbOLVs2=Ggw2GcS1-uj+QGSfSKVq1Mp0ig62WAnG+rBw@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it > would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between > the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes > to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. Hi Miles, Netflix is not your ISP. Verizon is. You pay Verizon to carry your packets to and from everybody else on the Internet, not just those folks they feel like connecting to. On the flip side, Netflix is NOT demanding payment from Verizon the way TV stations demand payment from cable and satellite companies. Netflix and their carriers have repeatedly offered to freely connect at multiple locations where Verizon already has facilities. One of these companies is demanding a second payment to provide the service they've already been paid for. One is not. The one demanding double-payment is unambiguously at fault. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From ikiris at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 13:45:24 2014 From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:45:24 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVbOLVs2=Ggw2GcS1-uj+QGSfSKVq1Mp0ig62WAnG+rBw@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAP-guGVbOLVs2=Ggw2GcS1-uj+QGSfSKVq1Mp0ig62WAnG+rBw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAJvB4tm9YVvL=B1cJNQKbvC45MaOoDgWSYfSBr61caHukVLVug@mail.gmail.com> Last I checked, it is eyeball network responsibility to adequately provision their transit capacity to support the demand of their customers, or find alternate solutions for the customers to be able to receive the service they are paying for (internet bandwidth to/from the sites they choose to visit). Anything outside of that like direct peering is icing on the cake and a way to serve lower latency or costs to the networks in question. This is all a smoke screen from the major eyeball players to cloud the fact that they intentionally do *not* adequately provision transit bandwidth to serve their customers what they are paying for. -Blake On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it >> would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between >> the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes >> to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes. > > Hi Miles, > > Netflix is not your ISP. Verizon is. You pay Verizon to carry your > packets to and from everybody else on the Internet, not just those > folks they feel like connecting to. > > On the flip side, Netflix is NOT demanding payment from Verizon the > way TV stations demand payment from cable and satellite companies. > Netflix and their carriers have repeatedly offered to freely connect > at multiple locations where Verizon already has facilities. > > One of these companies is demanding a second payment to provide the > service they've already been paid for. One is not. The one demanding > double-payment is unambiguously at fault. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From lijun at cs.uoregon.edu Fri Jul 11 09:28:41 2014 From: lijun at cs.uoregon.edu (Jun Li) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 02:28:41 -0700 Subject: NPSec 2014: Call for Papers (Submission Deadline Extended: July 17) References: <90938F0E-2B3F-4300-85B1-B360212C3F10@cs.uoregon.edu> Message-ID: <8D033820-34AD-4994-94F8-F17136CA640A@cs.uoregon.edu> CALL FOR PAPERS Ninth Workshop on Secure Network Protocols (NPSec 2014) Raleigh, North Carolina, USA October 21, 2014 In conjunction with the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP 2014) Web page: http://netsec.cs.uoregon.edu/npsec2014 Important Dates Submission Deadline (extended): July 17, 2014 (11:59 PM PDT) Notification of acceptance: August 2, 2014 Camera ready version: August 16, 2014 Scope The Workshop on Secure Network Protocols (NPSec) is a top workshop focusing on cutting-edge research with a broad range of topics related to secure network protocols. NPSec 2014 focuses on two exciting areas related to secure network protocols. The first focus is on the development and analysis of networking protocols for the secure operation of various network infrastructures, including both today's Internet and future Internet architectures, wireless and mobile networking, cloud-based networking, peer-to-peer and overlay networks, online social networking, and Internet of things. Papers about new secure protocols, security enhancements to existing protocols, or protocol analysis (such as new attacks on existing protocols) are all welcome. The second focus is on employing such secure network protocols to create or enhance network applications, such as those related to the Web, online social networking, online gaming, or cloud-based applications. Topics of interest include but are not limited to: Vulnerabilities of existing protocols and applications (both theoretical and case studies), including attacks; Design of new secure or resilient network protocols; Security enhancements to existing networking protocols; Deployment study of secure protocols on the Internet (e.g., BGPSEC, DNSSEC, IPSEC); Security in future Internet architectures (e.g. Information-centric networking, software-defined networking); Secure network protocols for network applications (e.g., cloud-based apps, online social networking, gaming) Submission Requirements Papers need to be submitted at the web page http://edas.info/newPaper.php?c=18197. Submitted papers must be no longer than six (6) pages in double-column format with standard margins (i.e., at least one inch all around) and at least a 10 point font. This length includes everything: figures, tables, references, appendices, and so forth. Longer submissions will not be reviewed. Papers must be written in English and formatted for printing on US LETTER (8.5" by 11") size paper. Papers should include a title; full list of authors, their organization and email address; and an abstract of fewer than 200 words. All papers must adhere to IEEE formatting standards. Consult the IEEE Transactions LaTeX and Microsoft Word Style Files (http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/authors/transjnl/index.html). Papers must be submitted in PDF (Portable Document Format) and compatible with Acrobat (English version), not including any special characters or non-standard fonts. Best Paper Award and Journal Publication The Best Paper Award Committee of NPSec 2014 will select a paper in this year's NPSec Program to receive the Best Paper Award. Every accepted paper will be considered based on its originality, writing quality, potential of impact, and its presentation at the workshop. We are further working on establishing a journal special issue on secure network protocols. While open to the public, the special issue will also invite the authors of quality papers from NPSec to submit an extended version of their work. Steering Committee Sonia Fahmy, Purdue University, USA (chair) George Kesidis, Penn State University, USA Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Purdue University, USA Gene Tsudik, UC Irvine, USA Technical Program Committee Johanna Amann, International Computer Science Institute Fred Baker, Cisco Research Center Randy Bush, Internet Initiative Japan Wu-chang Feng, Portland State University Stephen Kent, BBN Technololgies Huan Li, Beihang University Qi Li, ETH Zurich Olaf Maennel, Loughborough University Daniel Massey, US Department of Homeland Security Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow Peter Reiher, UCLA Lan Wang, University of Memphis Brian Weis, Cisco Systems Tilman Wolf, University of Massachusetts Ying Zhang, Ericsson Research Xukai Zou, School of Science, Purdue University-Indianapolis Technical Program Committee Chairs Jun Li, University of Oregon, USA Wei Zhao, University of Macau, China From mkamal at noor.net Fri Jul 11 11:31:24 2014 From: mkamal at noor.net (Mohamed Kamal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:31:24 +0200 Subject: BGP selection criteria in a VXR-G2 running SB code Message-ID: <53BFCB0C.7080700@noor.net> Hi, In brief, I have a VRF configured on a PE router which is a 7200-G2 router running 12.2(31)SB18, I import two route targets, one of them belongs to another VRF. Now, when I receive two default routes from both VRFs, and my question is, why did the PE router preferred the default route from 192.168.253.252:20500:0.0.0.0/0 although it's the newer one as presented below (I have removed the RT and then added it again, so that the route becomes the more recent) Any ideas? pe1#sh ip bg vpnv4 vrf network 0.0.0.0/0 BGP routing table entry for 192.168.253.210:10:0.0.0.0/0, version 43143585 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table network) Flag: 0x420 Advertised to update-groups: 3 Local, imported path from 192.168.253.252:10:0.0.0.0/0 192.168.253.251 (metric 2010) from 192.168.253.110 (192.168.253.110) Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best Extended Community: RT:20500:10 Originator: 192.168.253.252, Cluster list: 192.168.253.110 mpls labels in/out nolabel/719 pe1#conf t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. pe1(config)#ip vrf network pe1(config-vrf)# route-target import 20500:20500 pe1(config-vrf)#^Z pe1#sh ip bg vpnv4 vrf network 0.0.0.0/0 BGP routing table entry for 192.168.253.210:10:0.0.0.0/0, version 43146664 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table network) Flag: 0x420 Advertised to update-groups: 3 Local, imported path from 192.168.253.252:20500:0.0.0.0/0 192.168.253.251 (metric 2010) from 192.168.253.110 (192.168.253.110) Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best Extended Community: RT:20500:20500 Originator: 192.168.253.252, Cluster list: 192.168.253.110 mpls labels in/out nolabel/825 Local, imported path from 192.168.253.252:10:0.0.0.0/0 192.168.253.251 (metric 2010) from 192.168.253.110 (192.168.253.110) Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal Extended Community: RT:20500:10 Originator: 192.168.253.252, Cluster list: 192.168.253.110 mpls labels in/out nolabel/719 -- Mohamed Kamal Network Engineer, Core Team NOOR Data Networks, SAE City Stars Capital 5 A4 Omar Ibn El Khattab Street Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt Mobile GSM.: +2 0100 29 49 691 Land Line.: +20 2 16700 Ext.: 139 Fax.: +20 2 3748 2816 Email.: mkamal at noor.net From dave at temk.in Fri Jul 11 13:38:52 2014 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:38:52 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CACXVQYAih8nP+3wZKc4n7FBHSCwuDbA18QSoZYAGge7zADGfDg@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <CACXVQYAih8nP+3wZKc4n7FBHSCwuDbA18QSoZYAGge7zADGfDg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAFJiuFo-eZzPOv4UjyZSBMnmWGGdb+5j7h8rNjs4zkrRVoTChg@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I'm Dave Temkin, and I work for Netflix. I'd like to dispel a few incorrect assumptions portrayed in this thread. I'm going to avoid going point by point, but will try to cover the concerns raised broadly. First and foremost, we built our CDN, Open Connect, with the intention to deploy it as widely as possible in order to save ISPs who are delivering our traffic money and improve our mutual customer experience. This goes for ISPs large and small, domestic and international, big endian and little endian. We've never demanded payment from an ISP nor have we ever charged for an Open Connect Appliance. When we first launched almost three years ago, we set a lower boundary for receiving a Netflix Open Connect Appliance (which are always free) at 5Gbps. Since then we've softened that limit to 3.5Gbps due to efficiencies of how we pre-load our appliances (more on that below). We explicitly call our "cache" an Appliance because it's not a demand driven transparent or flow-through cache like the Akamai or Google caches. We do this because we know what's going to be popular the next day or even week and push a manifest to the Appliance to tell it what to download (usually in the middle of the night, but this is configurable by the ISP). The benefit of this architecture is that a single Appliance can get 70+% offload on a network, and three appliances clustered together can get 90+% offload, while consuming approximately 500 watts of power, using 4U of rack space, and serving 14Gbps per appliance. The downside of this architecture is that it requires significant bandwidth to fill; in some ISPs cases significantly more than they consume at peak viewing time. This is why our solution may not work well for some small ISPs and we instead suggest peering, which has 100% offload. We've put a lot of effort into localizing our peering infrastructure worldwide. As you can see from this map (sorry for the image), we're in 49 locations around the world with the significant bulk of them in the US (blue pins = 1 location, red pins = >1 location in a metro) - more detailed version at http://goo.gl/eDHpHU and in our PeeringDB record ( http://as2906.peeringdb.com) : We constantly re-evaluate the best places to deliver our traffic from and this year alone (2014) have added 14 POP's and still have at least 4 more to go. We continue to make large capital expenditures and invest human capital in making our streaming technology more efficient to ensure a lower cost of delivery for our partner ISPs and consistent quality for our mutual customers. I'm happy to answer any questions or address concerns, and as always you can reach out to (peering)@(netfilx).com -Dave Temkin Director, Network Architecture & Strategy ​ On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Dave Bell <me at geordish.org> wrote: > > Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a > lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service > we'd like to connect to your network directly. > > Yes. As an eyeball network operator I pay my transit provider to get > the packets my customers want to me. Content providers pay their > transit providers to get their packets to my customers. If there is a > way we can cut out the transit provider, why wouldn't we? > > > And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all > the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, > deal? > > This isn't exactly how it goes though. Netflix are able to peer at > around 25 locations in the US. The chances of a large ISP not having > at least one common point are pretty slim. > > So then it goes down to an interconnect cost across a building. I'm in > the UK, and I know the price that we pay is not very much at all. I > wouldn't be surprised if Netflix were willing to split the cost of > this link. > > Then we are down to port costs. These days a 10G port costs very > little indeed. And of course the larger you are, the more buying clout > you have, the less it costs. Combined with the fact that you are > taking traffic off your transit connection, therefore paying a smaller > bill, it is very likely that this will work out in a profit situation. > > > c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere > else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your > customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes). > > This appears to be what Comcast, Verizon etc are doing. Instead of > paying to receive the packets from their transit provider, they want > to be paid to receive them instead. I wonder just how much the recent > price increase from Netflix was to help fund the extortion they are > being subjected to? > > Dave > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Netflix OC Locations.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 168842 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140711/af25b982/attachment.jpg> From rstory at tislabs.com Fri Jul 11 14:32:15 2014 From: rstory at tislabs.com (Robert Story) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:32:15 -0400 Subject: Comcast Outages? In-Reply-To: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEgjJMTwHTc7TJAhaa-233GNM6_y+hZRhMv6_PtK4mXV0nTYUw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140711103215.1957ef8d@ispx.vb.futz.org> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:14:40 -0400 Kraig wrote: KB> Anyone in the SE seeing and/or hearing of any massive Comcast outages KB> regionally? KB> KB> (Fiber, Voice & DOCSIS modems from Atlanta, GA to Tallahassee, FL and in KB> some select areas Jacksonville, FL...) My comcast business service in Atlanta has not seen any interruptions.. Robert -- Senior Software Engineer @ Parsons -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140711/3ecb64a8/attachment.pgp> From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 11 15:09:42 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:09:42 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CACXVQYAih8nP+3wZKc4n7FBHSCwuDbA18QSoZYAGge7zADGfDg@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <CACXVQYAih8nP+3wZKc4n7FBHSCwuDbA18QSoZYAGge7zADGfDg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53BFFE36.1040800@meetinghouse.net> It strikes me that there are lots of legitimate, but conflicting, views on this topic - all of which come down to there being no clearly established principles for peering, traffic exchange, or settlements (either de facto or imposed by law or regulation ---- and different player are coming from worlds with very different existing models. Traditional package delivery: - sender pays, shipping costs paid by purchaser - COD model - purchaser pays on delivery There's the traditional telecom model: - end users pay for basic connection and local facilities (which, for corporate users includes PBX or Centrex costs) - caller pays for end-to-end connection - caller pays local carrier - with money flowing to both the long-haul carrier and the far-end local exchange carrier (somewhat modified, for a time, when it was common to have a separate long distance carrier, and a separate bill) - and then there's the whole realm of 900 numbers - money is collected by the telco, but forwarded to 3rd party providers Wireless: - pay by the minute for connection, at both ends - settlements up and down the chain Cable: - end user pays for connection and content - cable company pays content providers Internet: - users pay for access, pay more for a larger pipe - access networks pay for connections to backbone networks - some formal exchange points - lots of back-room peering arrangements - general principle of settlement-free peering when traffic flows are equal in both directions - big problem with large one-way flows (e.g., the purported 1/3 of Internet traffic that consists of Netflix video streams - not sure I completely believe that statistic, but video sure seems to dominate the net these days, with a lot of it coming from Netflix and maybe YouTube) So... which model to apply: - shipping model: sender pays shipping, bundled in price (we all pay Netflix, Netflix pays all the carriers) - COD model: (we're still paying Netflix, but Verizon collects and forwards the dollars) - telephone model: caller pays (but the notion of caller is kind of tricky in a P2P - cable model: customer pays local carrier, local carrier pays all the upstream costs for both content and carriage (Verizon becomes Netflix customer, pays Netflix) And that's before we get into settlements - whomever pays the initial bill, and whomever collects it - who pays the folks in them middle. There are real costs, ultimately the end user pays the bill - so it comes down to who collects the dollars and how they get distributed. Where it gets muddied up is when: - we try to avoid models that are "unfair" and/or "anti-competitive" and/or threaten to Balkanize the net ("Fast Lanes," "net neutrality," "common carriage") - a rather important set of considerations to most of us - big players start pointing fingers in the interests of pushing costs onto others while maximizing their own profits All in all, one big mess. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From ahad at telcoinabox.com Fri Jul 11 15:22:06 2014 From: ahad at telcoinabox.com (Ahad Aboss) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 01:22:06 +1000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> Message-ID: <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> Interesting point. The truth is, the ISP is responsible for the quality of experience for their end customers regardless of what content the customers consume or what time they consume it. They pay a monthly subscription / access fee and that is where it stops. ISPs can chose to blame Netflix until the cows come home or alternatively, they can do something more constructive, like deploying a cache solution or establishing direct peering with Netflix in one of the POIs. Ahad -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Vitkovský Adam Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 6:33 PM To: Matthew Petach Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew > Petach > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM > > > So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to > Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those > additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to > pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional > 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another > 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another > 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for > whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference). > > At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model > isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect > directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of > $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them." > > > Matt I disagree as all of this makes perfect sense. Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. And you goes: so you would like to become our customer? Sure this is the monthly fee for the link and transport service that would suite your needs. And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? What would be your answer? Of course this "good deal" has some precursors. If your customers fail to obey your statistical multiplexing predictions and links to your upstreams are running hot than you have several options. a) You could pay for the upgrades of links to your upstreams. b) You could take the "good deal" Netflix has proposed to save costs for a). c) You could not give a damn about your customers as they have nowhere else to go anyways and use this advantage to force Netflix to become your customer (well paying customer as they would need big pipes). What would you do? Options a) and b) assumes of course that Netflix has good connections to their upstreams and not misusing their position into forcing the customer relationship into free peering one. adam From jra at baylink.com Fri Jul 11 15:34:12 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6581632.5950.1405092852513.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> > He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic > and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to > grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching > boxes. Does he love caching, or hate caching? I really > can't tell. Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes > *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network; > isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence? > Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes > are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how > much Netflix may try to force them on you? > > I'm sorry. I think someone forgot to take their coherency > meds before writing that paragraph. > > If you like caching, you should be happy when someone > offers to give you caching boxes for FREE. If you don't > like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to > have traffic that isn't being cached. > > Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the > same paragraph is just...dizzying. No; it's the common result of deciding that you know what the end game ought to be -- which end-game *you want* -- and then trying to fit the rhetoric underneath that result. Cognitive dissonance is a *bitch*. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 11 15:38:03 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:38:03 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Ahad Aboss wrote: > Interesting point. > > The truth is, the ISP is responsible for the quality of experience for their > end customers regardless of what content the customers consume or what time > they consume it. They pay a monthly subscription / access fee and that is > where it stops. ISPs can chose to blame Netflix until the cows come home or > alternatively, they can do something more constructive, like deploying a > cache solution or establishing direct peering with Netflix in one of the > POIs. > Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it? One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes. Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to improve service out to Netflix. Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result. Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as being mostly posturing for position. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 11 15:51:18 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:51:18 -0700 Subject: paleolithic inquiry In-Reply-To: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <524CEDE1-A928-4D04-A37B-7C92F0604C45@delong.com> It’s been a very long time, but I remember that &D3 (or possibly &D2 depending on particular firmware) and S0=1 were important. I think &C, &R, S6 and possibly S7 were also important, but don’t remember the required values. A quick peek at the documentation for those switches should provide obvious choices, IIRC. Owen On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > need to put a usr everything modem, yes a modem, using inbound ppp on a > freebsd 10 box and a pots line. > > anyone have the hacks for > o modem switch settings and > o /etc/ppp/ppp.conf > > randy From rwebb at ropeguru.com Fri Jul 11 15:54:37 2014 From: rwebb at ropeguru.com (rwebb at ropeguru.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:54:37 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <web-170253@mail.ropeguru.com> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:38:03 -0400 Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Ahad Aboss wrote: >> Interesting point. >> >> The truth is, the ISP is responsible for the quality of experience >>for their >> end customers regardless of what content the customers consume or >>what time >> they consume it. They pay a monthly subscription / access fee and >>that is >> where it stops. ISPs can chose to blame Netflix until the cows come >>home or >> alternatively, they can do something more constructive, like >>deploying a >> cache solution or establishing direct peering with Netflix in one >>of the >> POIs. >> > > Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world >country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to >go out there and fix it? > > One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and >by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes. > >SNIP... Of course it is not my telco's responsibility to fix the other telco's network. But you analogy is not valid here. Lets change it up a little bit to be more in line with the issue at hand. You make a phone call to a rural carrier or another country and get a horrible connection. If that degradation takes place on the link, that your telco owns, where it is handed off to the next network, then yes, it IS the originating telco's responsibility to pay to have it fixed. The same goes for the Verizon/Netflix issue. The problem is at the edge where Verizon connects to the rest of the internet. They are deliberately letting those links become congested to degrade Netflix, and any other provider, in order to protect their own video revenue stream. They could care less about the customer experience as long as they can blame someone else and keep the money flowing and add additional revenue by pissing off said Netflix customer enough that they move to a Verizon solution. Robert From jimpop at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 15:56:46 2014 From: jimpop at gmail.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:56:46 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAGfsgR2BBV4+fgMLCfgw1BEaVCbs0XcAvcDw4i=3KNh3Bg9M7Q@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > > Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as > being mostly posturing for position. .. at the expense of the customer. -Jim P. From mpetach at netflight.com Fri Jul 11 16:31:12 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:31:12 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: > [...] > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > Jima > > I'm sorry. If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, it's not an ISP. Full stop. There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list. If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding another line of work. Matt From oscar.vives at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 16:34:22 2014 From: oscar.vives at gmail.com (Tei) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:34:22 +0200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGfsgR2BBV4+fgMLCfgw1BEaVCbs0XcAvcDw4i=3KNh3Bg9M7Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> <CAGfsgR2BBV4+fgMLCfgw1BEaVCbs0XcAvcDw4i=3KNh3Bg9M7Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CACg3zYG_zYZXCPsUW+cohf53JLdEcV19+=EARz4rUwLz+SvMMg@mail.gmail.com> *puts on trolling hat* Maybe the solution can be to have the Netflix client support the torrent protocol, so the upload from netflix is minimal. Maybe pre-distribute files encripted, then distribute the de-crypt key once the medias are distributed enough in different nodes. So netflix would be doing the first upload, then distribute the keys. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje. From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 11 16:44:58 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:44:58 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140711024502.GM32153@hezmatt.org> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <20140711024502.GM32153@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <BABFD20D-A310-430C-A5D6-5298E1C95693@delong.com> >> in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free > > These are the OpenConnect caching boxes, I assume? If that's the case, it's > incorrect to say that Netflix "refuses to allow [...] caching", simply that > they prefer to provide caching their way. As it stands, I don't see the > problem with running Netflix cacheboxes instead of your own -- if you *were* > running the cache, you would presumably need to pay for hosting anyway (and > also machines), so I'm not sure how OpenConnect is worse. If there are > reasons why OpenConnect boxes *are* inferior to some other solution (such as > if they take up 20 times the power and space of an equivalent caching > solution), then those are what need to be talked about. One could make a somewhat valid argument that the “OpenConnect” caches are limited to caching Netflix and thus not very “open” whereas a cache that I was hosting for myself could cache a variety of content sources and not just Netflix. Would it really be plausible for a small ISP to host caching clusters for every streaming content supplier out there? Don’t get me wrong, I think that the access networks are the ones that are failing their customers in this scenario over all, but I can see this one valid aspect to the argument above. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 11 16:50:22 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:50:22 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> Message-ID: <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who >> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years >> http://www.lariat.net/) > > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago: > > http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/ > > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best. > > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > Jima I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange. For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. Owen From george.herbert at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 16:52:20 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:52:20 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <BABFD20D-A310-430C-A5D6-5298E1C95693@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <20140711024502.GM32153@hezmatt.org> <BABFD20D-A310-430C-A5D6-5298E1C95693@delong.com> Message-ID: <A38B6B31-D3B8-468A-9AD4-8663F3F3F306@gmail.com> > On Jul 11, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > Would it really be plausible for a small ISP to host caching clusters for > every streaming content supplier out there? No, but if you have typical internet user streaming uptake, Netflix and Akamai and then... Short list, most of the demand. If you can't handle 2-3 then you have a scale problem. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 11 16:57:10 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:57:10 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> Message-ID: <0DA5C304-D290-4A7B-A204-31A96C961397@delong.com> On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Vitkovský Adam <adam.vitkovsky at swan.sk> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew >> Petach >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM >> >> >> So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd >> be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, >> right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct >> connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those >> costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections >> to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to >> cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to >> reference). >> >> At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't >> scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, >> my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to >> end up cancelling my subscription to them." >> >> >> Matt > > I disagree as all of this makes perfect sense. > > Would it be right if Netflix comes to You and says we see you've got a lot of our customers hooked up to your backbone so to serve better service we'd like to connect to your network directly. > And you goes: so you would like to become our customer? Sure this is the monthly fee for the link and transport service that would suite your needs. > And Netflix goes: well how about you build the link to us bearing all the costs and you gonna charge us nothing for the transport you provide, deal? > What would be your answer? Nope… It’d be totally wrong, and if I were Netflix, my response would be: No, I don’t want to be your customer. I want to work together with you as peers to improve the situation for our mutual customers. Which seems to be what Netflix is trying to do, having made a variety of attachment mechanisms readily available without charging the ISPs for any of them. Sure, the ISP may incur additional costs in reaching any of the available Netflix solutions, but none of that money is actually going to Netflix, unlike the ISPs attempt to get Netflix to subsidize their network to provide service to customers that are already paying them to receive Netflix (and other things). Owen From jra at baylink.com Fri Jul 11 16:56:52 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <BABFD20D-A310-430C-A5D6-5298E1C95693@delong.com> Message-ID: <4139940.5986.1405097812556.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > Would it really be plausible for a small ISP to host caching clusters > for every streaming content supplier out there? No, it wouldn't. But it also wouldn't be necessary. Netflix is the 900 pound gorilla in that market, and -- if nothing else -- is probably more constrained by rightsholders about how it's caching is done technically, and how secure it is... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Fri Jul 11 17:02:24 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <3916613.5988.1405098144420.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> > Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for > the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it > shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many > negative side-effects result. <hobbyhorse> No. Nope. DAMNIT, NO. Why is it that whenever we are having these conversations -- be they about Netflix and Verizon, or restaurants and waiters -- that we always tacitly *approve* of the idea that the zero sum game of money includes only the vendors and the customers? Why the *hell* do we not assume that perhaps, just maybe, *the company in the middle* ought to take some of that extra cost out of their profits? Have they succeeded in convincing us -- the paying customers -- that corporate profit margins are sacred? That they should *never* have to pay some of that cost themselves? Why? </hobbyhorse> Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 11 17:08:17 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:08:17 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <6FB0247D-998A-4A87-8FB2-75B5E2AB8ECE@delong.com> > Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it? > > One might answer, "of course not." It’s a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes. Uh, no… Because in this case, you’re making a phone call FROM a rural area or 3rd world country with a horrible system to a large metro with excellent phone service. Then, you’re attempting to reverse the analogy and ask the service you’re calling in the large metro to come fix your rural 3rd world telco at their expense. > Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to improve service out to Netflix. USF is a great idea on paper. Its implementation leaves much to be desired. I’m all for subsidizing GPON to rural areas, but I’m not so excited about the fact that these GPON subsidies that I’m paying for are causing the telcos to implement GPON in rural areas while ignoring places like the capital of silicon valley. That’s right, you can’t get GPON in most of silicon valley, but you can in much of South Dakota and even many parts of Alaska. > Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it’s more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result. Not really. At the end of the day, this is about whether or not an eyeball network should be able to double-dip and force content providers to increase their costs in order to subsidize lower pricing for residential broadband services. Allowing that to happen comes with a number of negative side effects, not the least of which is it creates a barrier to competition on the content side. > Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as being mostly posturing for position. On this, we agree. However, overall, I think that the access networks are the ones trying to do real and lasting harm to the consumers in the equation, which is a long standing tradition among $CABLECO and $TELCO type organizations, most of whom operate more like law firms than communications companies. Owen From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 11 17:11:31 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:11:31 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXuUkEP+h00io0ZGwUququc2Nz+rLV9xnw7FzoCS5+qLQ@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, > with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there > and fix it? Hi Miles, The telephone companies offer a remarkably apt case study in how NOT to do traffic hand off. With the advent of CLECs, the incumbent phone companies fought tooth and nail against simple settlement-free interconnection. They were deathly afraid of CLECs wiring up office buildings at a discount and then stranding the ILECs with the more expensive residential and small users. They convinced the FCC to dictate an originator-pays strategy where both companies must assure sufficient capacity between their systems and then the originating system pays the receiving system a couple pennies a minute. So sure, wire up all those office buildings. They're going to mainly call our customers and we'll collect the money from you instead. As you can imagine, hilarity ensued: some CLECs actually paid Internet Service Providers to accept PRIs because the PRIs only ever received calls and they tended to be heavily used 24 hours a day. The CLECs got their entire revenue from per-minute charges the ILECs had insisted the FCC require. Modern arrangements between CLECs and ILECs are somewhat less insane. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 11 17:17:56 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGU0ftB8p+UwPrKJ5Hvu2H769oaVam4yNqjVNJJuJAgLVA@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to > subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is > legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for > the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. The USF worked great until the Clinton administration re-purposed it to buy computers for rural schools. Now it's just another tax. Before that, the basic idea was that every phone line paid in a fixed amount every month and then when a phone company installed an expensive rural line, they recovered the excess cost from the fund. This made high-density urban lines cost neutral compared to low density rural lines, making rural service desirable for the service provider. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From khelms at zcorum.com Fri Jul 11 17:37:47 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:37:47 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> Matt, That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: > > > [...] > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe > > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > > > Jima > > > > > I'm sorry. > If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, > it's not an ISP. Full stop. > > There *are* some fundamental basics > that are necessary to function as an ISP; > having an AS number and being able to > speak BGP are pretty much at the top > of the list. > > If you cannot manage to obtain and support > an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time > to consider closing up shop and finding > another line of work. > > Matt > From khelms at zcorum.com Fri Jul 11 17:46:23 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:46:23 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRx0yqsPGPDd1VppTXYi63TrTmjg0jXNXWfq=4xvyZn=SQ@mail.gmail.com> Owen, That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. Where possible the smaller operators often do form groups and partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering more distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP individually. There have been many attempts at creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: > > > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > >> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > >> http://www.lariat.net/) > > > > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding > their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two > months ago: > > > > > http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/ > > > > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of > http://lariat.net/peering existing, > https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd > expect, either, although I did finally find the link to > http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm > not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 > wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad > joke at best. > > > > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my > current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in > Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those > would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. > > > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > > > Jima > > I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form > consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a > larger remote exchange. > > For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a > circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, > SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share > cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. > > Owen > > From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jul 11 18:12:03 2014 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 04:12:03 +1000 (EST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201407111812.s6BIC3fk017197@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 12 Jul, 2014 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 503164 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 195513 Deaggregation factor: 2.57 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 247724 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 47246 Prefixes per ASN: 10.65 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 35956 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 16342 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6120 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 172 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 50404) 51 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1788 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 482 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 7001 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5170 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 18371 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 347 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 415 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2707601764 Equivalent to 161 /8s, 98 /16s and 185 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 73.1 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 73.1 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 96.6 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 173889 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 121252 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 35618 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.40 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 124480 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 51637 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4959 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 25.10 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1224 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 879 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1001 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 734683264 Equivalent to 43 /8s, 202 /16s and 96 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 85.9 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-63999, 131072-133631 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 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, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 168962 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 84057 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 170799 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 79814 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16322 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.46 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6110 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1682 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 40 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 139 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1089677600 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 243 /16s and 41 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.6 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 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 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, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 124053 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 62839 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.97 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 128838 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 81548 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17739 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 7.26 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8264 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2878 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 53 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2727 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 658378628 Equivalent to 39 /8s, 62 /16s and 15 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 95.7 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, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-202239 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 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, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 58379 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 10247 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.70 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 65862 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 29896 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2140 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.78 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 535 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 448 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1259 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 166714944 Equivalent to 9 /8s, 239 /16s and 222 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 99.4 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 262144-263679 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 12046 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2715 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.44 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 12770 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 4469 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 719 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.76 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 209 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 156 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.8 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 44 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 57782272 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 113 /16s and 176 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 57.4 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2968 11592 924 Korea Telecom 17974 2792 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 7545 2326 320 118 TPG Telecom Limited 4755 1857 392 197 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1655 1306 31 National Internet Backbone 9583 1313 103 537 Sify Limited 9498 1289 317 93 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 7552 1243 1098 14 Viettel Corporation 4808 1205 1774 355 CNCGROUP IP network China169 24560 1149 398 190 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 2952 3688 53 BellSouth.net Inc. 22773 2717 2940 139 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2457 1905 304 Windstream Communications Inc 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1728 1716 567 Charter Communications 4323 1629 1073 411 tw telecom holdings, inc. 30036 1472 316 609 Mediacom Communications Corp 701 1440 11187 727 MCI Communications Services, 6983 1380 817 312 ITC^Deltacom 22561 1304 402 232 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 34984 1718 265 276 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 20940 1443 564 1063 Akamai International B.V. 8402 1338 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 31148 1042 45 20 Freenet Ltd. 13188 1031 100 28 TOV "Bank-Inform" 8551 964 370 41 Bezeq International-Ltd 6849 818 356 26 JSC "Ukrtelecom" 6830 772 2335 429 Liberty Global Operations B.V 12479 736 795 57 France Telecom Espana SA 9198 588 346 28 JSC Kazakhtelecom Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3777 2027 103 NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S 10620 2915 472 212 Telmex Colombia S.A. 18881 2073 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 7303 1769 1180 231 Telecom Argentina S.A. 8151 1439 2967 419 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1118 434 61 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 6147 1029 373 28 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 979 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 27947 895 130 53 Telconet S.A 26615 863 2325 35 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 36998 1114 240 6 Sudanese Mobile Telephone (ZA 24863 913 280 26 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 6713 672 744 40 Office National des Postes et 8452 592 958 13 TE-AS 36992 309 784 25 ETISALAT MISR 24835 306 144 9 Vodafone Data 37054 258 19 6 Data Telecom Service 3741 249 920 212 Internet Solutions 29571 232 22 18 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 15706 187 32 6 Sudatel (Sudan Telecom Co. Lt Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3777 2027 103 NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S 4766 2968 11592 924 Korea Telecom 6389 2952 3688 53 BellSouth.net Inc. 10620 2915 472 212 Telmex Colombia S.A. 17974 2792 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 22773 2717 2940 139 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2457 1905 304 Windstream Communications Inc 7545 2326 320 118 TPG Telecom Limited 18881 2073 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 2952 2899 BellSouth.net Inc. 17974 2792 2720 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 10620 2915 2703 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 2717 2578 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 2326 2208 TPG Telecom Limited 7029 2457 2153 Windstream Communications Inc 18881 2073 2051 Global Village Telecom 4766 2968 2044 Korea Telecom 18566 2047 1869 MegaPath Corporation 4755 1857 1660 TATA Communications formerly Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.32.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.96.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 2828 XO Communications 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.160.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.161.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 6461 Abovenet Communicati 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.240.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.226.240.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.226.248.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 24.231.96.0/24 21548 MTO Telecom Inc. 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.10.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.11.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.12.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.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 /8:16 /9:13 /10:30 /11:91 /12:259 /13:494 /14:975 /15:1701 /16:13010 /17:6988 /18:11685 /19:24688 /20:35018 /21:37396 /22:53928 /23:47268 /24:267375 /25:840 /26:946 /27:389 /28:13 /29:17 /30:10 /31:1 /32:13 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 2002 2047 MegaPath Corporation 22773 1960 2717 Cox Communications Inc. 6389 1693 2952 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1314 1472 Mediacom Communications Corp 7029 1278 2457 Windstream Communications Inc 11492 1189 1240 CABLE ONE, INC. 6983 1088 1380 ITC^Deltacom 36998 1080 1114 Sudanese Mobile Telephone (ZA 34984 1046 1718 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 8402 1033 1338 OJSC "Vimpelcom" Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1163 2:657 3:3 4:15 5:1033 6:19 8:713 12:1830 13:4 14:1101 15:15 16:2 17:38 18:21 20:37 23:889 24:1756 27:1713 31:1499 32:41 33:2 34:5 36:138 37:1814 38:952 39:7 40:204 41:3155 42:253 43:117 44:13 45:35 46:2074 47:22 49:726 50:810 52:12 54:46 55:6 56:1 57:29 58:1173 59:616 60:416 61:1577 62:1252 63:1861 64:4378 65:2286 66:4159 67:2061 68:1078 69:3340 70:887 71:441 72:2009 74:2630 75:318 76:410 77:1663 78:835 79:698 80:1321 81:1207 82:768 83:767 84:747 85:1313 86:426 87:1177 88:463 89:1791 90:138 91:5701 92:721 93:1752 94:1993 95:1581 96:499 97:360 98:1093 99:49 100:64 101:941 103:5235 104:42 105:545 106:180 107:573 108:576 109:2048 110:993 111:1345 112:671 113:852 114:805 115:1137 116:1093 117:964 118:1495 119:1415 120:412 121:848 122:2112 123:1405 124:1417 125:1543 128:573 129:339 130:351 131:655 132:417 133:162 134:318 135:74 136:286 137:287 138:366 139:165 140:204 141:385 142:568 143:403 144:511 145:106 146:652 147:482 148:905 149:386 150:344 151:712 152:444 153:221 154:306 155:515 156:355 157:341 158:250 159:910 160:328 161:565 162:1601 163:304 164:696 165:626 166:291 167:649 168:1059 169:124 170:1356 171:185 172:65 173:1502 174:718 175:600 176:1391 177:3276 178:2058 179:766 180:1760 181:1281 182:1598 183:536 184:732 185:1861 186:2876 187:1628 188:2137 189:1487 190:7663 191:629 192:7402 193:5516 194:4046 195:3517 196:1413 197:676 198:5093 199:5513 200:6313 201:2676 202:9127 203:8953 204:4589 205:2636 206:2964 207:2969 208:3963 209:3734 210:3098 211:1723 212:2311 213:2110 214:870 215:87 216:5613 217:1685 218:613 219:330 220:1285 221:626 222:353 223:594 End of report From blake at ispn.net Fri Jul 11 18:20:21 2014 From: blake at ispn.net (Blake Hudson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:20:21 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> Verizon Policy Blog wrote: > There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge > of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers > chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network. In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a source network operator to work around. This post is complete technical FUD. --Blake From joelja at bogus.com Fri Jul 11 18:39:48 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:39:48 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> Message-ID: <53C02F74.7060708@bogus.com> On 7/11/14 11:20 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > Verizon Policy Blog wrote: > >> There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the >> edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers >> chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network. > > In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone > else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with > and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely > in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those > transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a > responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the > capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a > source network operator to work around. CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de etré. If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as. > > This post is complete technical FUD. > > --Blake > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 286 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140711/92d86884/attachment.pgp> From jared at puck.Nether.net Fri Jul 11 18:40:38 2014 From: jared at puck.Nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:40:38 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> Message-ID: <20140711184038.GG18171@puck.nether.net> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:20:21PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: > > Verizon Policy Blog wrote: > > >There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of > >our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by > >Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network. > > In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's > network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it > announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of > traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is > congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is > surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if > even possible, for a source network operator to work around. I think what this highlights is the possible risks and troubles with the different markets at play. Consumer vs "Enterprise" vs SMB vs "wholesale". These are discrete market segments and when there is a company that participates in some of them those growth curves look vastly different from each other. If the 80% rule is right I hear brandied about (80% of traffic is some form of video either amazon, youtube, netflix, hulu, redbox, etc..) that's different from an office network network pattern. I think we all know this, but not everyone I know translates this into a business case or practice. for me personally, the larger question is: If Verizon and Netflix have done a commercial deal (as reported in the press) what is holding up the installation of those ports? Of course, I'm not party to the discussions between the companies but do see it as interesting the dueling in the press/blogosphere. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. From mpetach at netflight.com Fri Jul 11 18:55:14 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:55:14 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. Matt On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Matt, > > That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers > wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small > providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs > from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have > never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: >> >> > [...] >> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a >> pipe >> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, >> an >> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >> > >> > Jima >> > >> > >> I'm sorry. >> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >> >> There *are* some fundamental basics >> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >> having an AS number and being able to >> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >> of the list. >> >> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >> to consider closing up shop and finding >> another line of work. >> >> Matt >> > > From blake at ispn.net Fri Jul 11 19:07:41 2014 From: blake at ispn.net (Blake Hudson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:07:41 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C02F74.7060708@bogus.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> <53C02F74.7060708@bogus.com> Message-ID: <53C035FD.1080408@ispn.net> joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM: > On 7/11/14 11:20 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: >> Verizon Policy Blog wrote: >> >>> There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the >>> edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers >>> chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network. >> In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone >> else's network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with >> and how it announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely >> in control of traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those >> transit providers is congested, this is something Verizon, as a >> responsible network operator, is surely aware of and has the >> capability to resolve. This is difficult, if even possible, for a >> source network operator to work around. > CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de etré. > > If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any > one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as. > Yes, but no matter which network Netflix uses as an exit from their network, Verizon still has the final say on how it enters Verizon's network. If Netflix has several transit providers to choose from, at best they can try each one and see what delivers the best experience to their mutual customers. Of course, Verizon might change their routing policy tomorrow (or on-demand) and throw that all out of whack. My point is that Verizon advertises several ways to reach Verizon's network. If one path is 'inneficient' as Verizon states, Verizon is at fault for announcing that inefficient path. Netflix does not dictate Verizon's border routing policy, contrary to Verizon's claims. --Blake From geoffk at geoffk.org Fri Jul 11 19:31:19 2014 From: geoffk at geoffk.org (Geoffrey Keating) Date: 11 Jul 2014 12:31:19 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <m2ion3u1yw.fsf@localhost.localdomain> Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> writes: > Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for > the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it > shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many > negative side-effects result. In this case, though, this isn't quite right, is it? There are a bunch of different ways to get Netflix to an eyeball ISP's customers. It seems like right now, Verizon is using one of the ways which is both expensive and poor quality: settlement-free peering with Netflix's transit provider. But, they have other options: direct peering with Netflix and/or using Netflix's cache architecture. These seem like they should, overall, cost less than the current arrangement, and probably would reduce costs and improve performance for everyone involved. That's where the posturing comes in. See, you'll notice Verizon actually made two arguments for why they weren't going to fix their capacity problem with Netflix. One was that Netflix is an exceptionally huge traffic source and unexpectedly dropped this traffic load on Verizon through a path that wasn't prepared for it. That's a semi-reasonable argument for why Netflix should contribute to improving the situation; it's not like this is really unexpected, or that Netflix hasn't offered to contribute, but it's reasonable to have a negotiation about who pays for what. The other argument was essentially "Netflix sends us more data than we send them". As others have commented, that's nonsense. But the reason for trying this argument is the old settlement-free peering problem: Verizon does not want Netflix as a peer if it can possibly have Netflix as a paying customer, and so it has an incentive to place obstacles in its path; and it certainly doesn't want to give everyone else the idea that they can become peers too. That is the real problem here and is why this has become a huge fight instead of a really straightforward transaction. From khelms at zcorum.com Fri Jul 11 19:33:15 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:33:15 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> Matt, They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring > some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. > > Matt > On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers >> wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small >> providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs >> from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have >> never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> -------------------------------- >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> -------------------------------- >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: >>> >>> > [...] >>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a >>> pipe >>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, >>> an >>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>> > >>> > Jima >>> > >>> > >>> I'm sorry. >>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>> >>> There *are* some fundamental basics >>> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >>> having an AS number and being able to >>> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >>> of the list. >>> >>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >>> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >>> to consider closing up shop and finding >>> another line of work. >>> >>> Matt >>> >> >> From mpetach at netflight.com Fri Jul 11 19:42:47 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:42:47 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. Matt On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Matt, > > They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and > business customers. They belong to various service provider associations > and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs > by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you > an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they > class themselves that way. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> > wrote: > >> Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do >> bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. >> >> Matt >> On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers >>> wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small >>> providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs >>> from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have >>> never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >>> >>> >>> Scott Helms >>> Vice President of Technology >>> ZCorum >>> (678) 507-5000 >>> -------------------------------- >>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> > [...] >>>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a >>>> pipe >>>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that >>>> matter, an >>>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>>> > >>>> > Jima >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm sorry. >>>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>>> >>>> There *are* some fundamental basics >>>> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >>>> having an AS number and being able to >>>> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >>>> of the list. >>>> >>>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >>>> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >>>> to consider closing up shop and finding >>>> another line of work. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>> >>> > From khelms at zcorum.com Fri Jul 11 19:52:42 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:52:42 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> Matt, No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. You said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I said nothing less and nothing more. I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many of the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has several ASNs for both historical and operational reasons, all I am pointing out is that you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP is in an eyeball network context and that view is inaccurate. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a > feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the > internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are > completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP > is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. > > Matt > On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential >> and business customers. They belong to various service provider >> associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. >> They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does >> _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, >> nor would they class themselves that way. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> -------------------------------- >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> -------------------------------- >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do >>> bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. >>> >>> Matt >>> On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Matt, >>>> >>>> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers >>>> wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small >>>> providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs >>>> from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have >>>> never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >>>> >>>> >>>> Scott Helms >>>> Vice President of Technology >>>> ZCorum >>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > [...] >>>>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a >>>>> pipe >>>>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that >>>>> matter, an >>>>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jima >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm sorry. >>>>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>>>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>>>> >>>>> There *are* some fundamental basics >>>>> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >>>>> having an AS number and being able to >>>>> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >>>>> of the list. >>>>> >>>>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >>>>> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >>>>> to consider closing up shop and finding >>>>> another line of work. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 21:01:57 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:01:57 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C035FD.1080408@ispn.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> <53C02F74.7060708@bogus.com> <53C035FD.1080408@ispn.net> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaKhK8-r0YQ-99oPrFG-VMDq1ZCeNQCJSjA7Hqgz3ypYw@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote: > > joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM: > >> CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de >> etré. they do this with DNS changes for client requests... pushing a customer to an endpoint reachable across one path vs another. (added for clarification only) >> If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any >> one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as. >> > Yes, but no matter which network Netflix uses as an exit from their network, > Verizon still has the final say on how it enters Verizon's network. If not really? verizon's held (for relationships they call 'settlement free interconnects') to a standard that includes essentially equal announcements across all common interconnects. Ideally this means vzb announces all 10,123 routes across all of the interconnects between 701 and network B... > Netflix has several transit providers to choose from, at best they can try > each one and see what delivers the best experience to their mutual yup, netflix has some idea that "At time T path X-Y-Z-701 is better than A-B-C-701" so they force some set of customers across this path as best they can by telling these customers taht X-Y-Z-701.stream.netflix.net == 1.2.3.4 is the right name/address mapping for the content requested. If something happens during the dns TTL / decision process to change DNS with traffic across the X-Y-Z-701 path though... it's not clear to me that netflix can affect those active streams. If the pathway goes away sure things shift around, if the path just gets congested... whoops. On top of this, there are lots of folk over the peering-wars-years that have shown they can influence peering discussions one way or the other by pushing traffic across distinct points in the as graph, then making press-hay about the mistreatment they are receiving. (NOTE NOTE NOTE: I have no idea if that's going on, I'm just making the point that this very clearly has happened in the past with other players) > customers. Of course, Verizon might change their routing policy tomorrow (or > on-demand) and throw that all out of whack. My point is that Verizon > advertises several ways to reach Verizon's network. If one path is > 'inneficient' as Verizon states, Verizon is at fault for announcing that > inefficient path. Netflix does not dictate Verizon's border routing policy, > contrary to Verizon's claims. it's not the inefficiency of the path, it's the (probably, maybe) difference in capacity available vs other/alternate paths. -chris From mpetach at netflight.com Fri Jul 11 21:39:32 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:39:32 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Matt, > > No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. You > said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function > as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty > much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I said nothing > less and nothing more. > > I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many of > the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has several ASNs > for both historical and operational reasons, all I am pointing out is that > you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP is in an eyeball network > context and that view is inaccurate. > > Scott, I think the problem here is one of terminology, then. You seem to be discussing "ISP" as a business model; I'm talking about "ISP" as a network entity. Regardless of your business model, from the network perspective, if you do not have an AS number, you don't exist as a separate entity. So, I will grant you that you can print business cards that list you as an ISP without having an AS number. But from the perspective of the network, you don't exist as a separate entity; the only "ISP" involved in routing those packets from the perspective of the BGP-speaking core of the internet is your upstream. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, as it's all just a matter of how we define what an ISP is. Thanks! Matt > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> > wrote: > >> I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a >> feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the >> internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are >> completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP >> is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. >> >> Matt >> On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential >>> and business customers. They belong to various service provider >>> associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. >>> They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does >>> _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, >>> nor would they class themselves that way. >>> >>> >>> Scott Helms >>> Vice President of Technology >>> ZCorum >>> (678) 507-5000 >>> -------------------------------- >>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do >>>> bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Matt, >>>>> >>>>> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers >>>>> wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small >>>>> providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs >>>>> from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have >>>>> never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Scott Helms >>>>> Vice President of Technology >>>>> ZCorum >>>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach < >>>>> mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > [...] >>>>>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for >>>>>> a pipe >>>>>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that >>>>>> matter, an >>>>>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jima >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm sorry. >>>>>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>>>>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>>>>> >>>>>> There *are* some fundamental basics >>>>>> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >>>>>> having an AS number and being able to >>>>>> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >>>>>> of the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >>>>>> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >>>>>> to consider closing up shop and finding >>>>>> another line of work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > From richard at bennett.com Fri Jul 11 21:41:23 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:41:23 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> Message-ID: <53C05A03.7060808@bennett.com> Actually, there are some examples of this, and I'm surprised Mr. Temkin didn't point them out. I've been told by rural telcos (RLECs) that there's a consolidated mini-exchange in Idaho that was originally built with some support from the state in order exchange phone calls within Idaho that would otherwise have to be sent to Denver or Seattle for interconnect. The RLECs subsequently used the facility for peering between their broadband networks, and at some point Netflix, at its own expense, installed some of its proprietary servers and paid for a circuit to Seattle. The part that excited the RLECs was Netflix footing the bill to move its traffic from Seattle to Idaho. The RLECs told me they're not overjoyed by the cost of moving all that traffic 50 miles on their own networks, but it beats moving it all the way from Seattle. I thought that was funny since Comcast moves Netflix traffic 100 miles from their nearest exchange point in San Jose to my home in the East SF Bay. Looking at the traceroute, it all passes through SF, but Netflix doesn't have facilities there. Richard On 7/11/14, 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange. > > For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. > > Owen > -- Richard Bennett From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 11 21:49:18 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:49:18 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU0ftB8p+UwPrKJ5Hvu2H769oaVam4yNqjVNJJuJAgLVA@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> <CAP-guGU0ftB8p+UwPrKJ5Hvu2H769oaVam4yNqjVNJJuJAgLVA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C05BDE.40606@meetinghouse.net> William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to >> subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is >> legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for >> the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. > The USF worked great until the Clinton administration re-purposed it > to buy computers for rural schools. Now it's just another tax. > > Before that, the basic idea was that every phone line paid in a fixed > amount every month and then when a phone company installed an > expensive rural line, they recovered the excess cost from the fund. > This made high-density urban lines cost neutral compared to low > density rural lines, making rural service desirable for the service > provider. > > Agree - a better idea in theory than practice. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From dave at temk.in Fri Jul 11 21:57:58 2014 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:57:58 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C05A03.7060808@bennett.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> <53C05A03.7060808@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAFJiuFoGjTZQS0FimjDBnR4ehXffqqRAN7f8P+fqNFzHMz0Lhw@mail.gmail.com> Hi Richard, You may be confusing Idaho for Portland, but either way we are constantly adding new POPs and Portland is a great example of us bearing the cost that ISPs were bearing before to haul traffic from Seattle or San Jose. I would consider that a great success. Regarding Comcast in SF, they do not interconnect with other networks there, otherwise we'd probably hand off in the city. The interconnect locations are not always our choice. On Friday, July 11, 2014, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > Actually, there are some examples of this, and I'm surprised Mr. Temkin > didn't point them out. I've been told by rural telcos (RLECs) that there's > a consolidated mini-exchange in Idaho that was originally built with some > support from the state in order exchange phone calls within Idaho that > would otherwise have to be sent to Denver or Seattle for interconnect. The > RLECs subsequently used the facility for peering between their broadband > networks, and at some point Netflix, at its own expense, installed some of > its proprietary servers and paid for a circuit to Seattle. The part that > excited the RLECs was Netflix footing the bill to move its traffic from > Seattle to Idaho. > > The RLECs told me they're not overjoyed by the cost of moving all that > traffic 50 miles on their own networks, but it beats moving it all the way > from Seattle. I thought that was funny since Comcast moves Netflix traffic > 100 miles from their nearest exchange point in San Jose to my home in the > East SF Bay. Looking at the traceroute, it all passes through SF, but > Netflix doesn't have facilities there. > > Richard > > > On 7/11/14, 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form >> consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a >> larger remote exchange. >> >> For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a >> circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, >> SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share >> cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. >> >> Owen >> >> > -- > Richard Bennett > > > From cidr-report at potaroo.net Fri Jul 11 22:00:00 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:00:00 GMT Subject: The Cidr Report Message-ID: <201407112200.s6BM00dO024655@wattle.apnic.net> This report has been generated at Fri Jul 11 21:10:32 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 04-07-14 507546 284271 05-07-14 508097 284317 06-07-14 508095 284519 07-07-14 508243 284914 08-07-14 508764 284695 09-07-14 508685 284695 10-07-14 0 284695 11-07-14 0 284695 AS Summary 0 Number of ASes in routing system 0 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 3792 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS28573: NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 0 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) ����� : NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 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'). --- 11Jul14 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 508685 284695 223990 44.0% All ASes AS28573 3792 139 3653 96.3% NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR AS6389 2951 80 2871 97.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.,US AS17974 2789 186 2603 93.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID AS22773 2664 191 2473 92.8% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US AS7029 2565 435 2130 83.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US AS4766 2969 933 2036 68.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR AS18881 2071 41 2030 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation,US AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR AS7545 2322 996 1326 57.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited,AU AS10620 2901 1583 1318 45.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO AS4755 1866 591 1275 68.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN AS4323 1654 433 1221 73.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US AS7552 1269 166 1103 86.9% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN AS36998 1114 37 1077 96.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD AS6983 1381 314 1067 77.3% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US AS22561 1302 241 1061 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.,US AS6147 1020 145 875 85.8% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE AS4788 1027 156 871 84.8% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet Service Provider,MY AS24560 1149 332 817 71.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services,IN AS7738 979 170 809 82.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR AS4808 1216 408 808 66.4% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN AS9829 1592 825 767 48.2% BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN AS11492 1247 490 757 60.7% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US AS18101 942 186 756 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN Reliance Communications Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN AS8151 1451 698 753 51.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX AS26615 863 128 735 85.2% Tim Celular S.A.,BR AS855 774 58 716 92.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Inc.,CA AS701 1443 730 713 49.4% UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US AS9808 1045 335 710 67.9% CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication Co.Ltd.,CN Total 52178 12027 40151 77.0% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 23.226.240.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 23.226.240.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 23.226.248.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 24.231.96.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 27.100.7.0/24 AS56096 41.73.1.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.2.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.10.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.11.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.12.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.13.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.14.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.15.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.16.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.18.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.20.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.21.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.76.48.0/21 AS36969 MTL-AS,MW 41.78.120.0/23 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 - INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE CORPORATION,US 41.78.236.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.237.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.238.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.239.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.189.96.0/20 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.72.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.73.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.74.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.75.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.191.108.0/22 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.108.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.109.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.110.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.111.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.223.208.0/22 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.133.39.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT 62.133.44.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT 64.25.16.0/23 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.20.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.21.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.22.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.27.0/24 AS7046 RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 64.111.160.0/20 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.160.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.161.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.162.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.167.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.169.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.170.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.171.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.172.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.173.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.174.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.175.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 65.75.216.0/23 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.75.217.0/24 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.111.1.0/24 AS32258 SDNGLOBAL - SDN Global,US 66.6.176.0/20 AS13223 BBTECNETWORKS-HK RM18, 9/F., Kwan Yick Building Phase 1, 430-440A Des Voeux Rd. West.,HK 66.55.96.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.98.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.99.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.100.0/22 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.102.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.104.0/21 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.180.64.0/21 AS32558 ZEUTER - Zeuter Development Corporation,CA 66.187.240.0/20 AS14552 ACS-SOUTHEASTDATACENTER - Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,US 66.205.224.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 66.251.128.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.133.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.134.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.136.0/21 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.140.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.141.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.142.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A.,IT 72.19.0.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 74.112.100.0/22 AS16764 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.113.200.0/23 AS46939 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/22 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.53.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.55.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.115.124.0/23 AS46540 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.118.132.0/22 AS5117 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.212.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.214.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.121.24.0/22 AS36263 FORONA - Forona Technologies, Inc.,US 77.243.80.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.81.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.88.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.91.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.94.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.95.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 80.78.133.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/23 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.135.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.250.32.0/22 AS37106 ODUA-AS,NG 85.202.160.0/20 AS44404 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.24.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.26.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.28.0/22 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.207.8.0/21 AS3292 TDC TDC A/S,DK 91.193.60.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.195.66.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.197.36.0/22 AS43359 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.199.90.0/24 AS44330 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.209.115.0/24 AS31103 KEYWEB-AS Keyweb AG,DE 91.214.65.0/24 AS30822 MAGEAL-AS Private Enterprise Mageal,LT 91.228.160.0/24 AS56815 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.239.157.0/24 AS24958 TBSH The Bunker Secure Hosting Limited,GB 91.245.224.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 91.245.232.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 91.245.240.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 91.245.248.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 93.190.10.0/24 AS47254 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 95.215.140.0/22 AS48949 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 102.2.88.0/22 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.6.108.0/22 AS37986 TULIP Tulip Telecom Ltd.,IN 103.6.228.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.108.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.140.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.141.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.142.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.143.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.17.108.0/23 AS56301 MN-NDC-MN National Data Center building,MN 103.18.76.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.18.80.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK 103.18.81.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK 103.18.92.0/22 AS13269 103.18.92.0/24 AS13269 103.18.94.0/24 AS13269 103.18.248.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.19.0.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.20.100.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.20.101.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.25.120.0/22 AS13280 103.248.88.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP 103.248.220.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP 103.249.156.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP 104.143.192.0/19 AS22676 TELENTIA - Telentia,US 104.152.60.0/22 AS62626 NISP-AS - Neighborhood ISP,US 108.174.208.0/20 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US 110.44.16.0/24 AS13117 110.44.18.0/24 AS13117 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 124.158.28.0/22 AS45857 142.147.62.0/24 AS3958 AIRCANADA - Air Canada,CA 162.218.168.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 162.218.175.0/24 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 163.47.23.0/24 AS2907 SINET-AS Research Organization of Information and Systems, National Institute of Informatics,JP 166.93.0.0/16 AS23537 CRITIGEN - Micro Source, Inc.,US 172.85.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.87.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.88.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group),CN 176.111.168.0/22 AS50586 MACROSOLUTIONS MacroSolution SRL,RO 176.124.32.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 176.125.224.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ 182.237.25.0/24 AS10201 DWL-AS-IN Dishnet Wireless Limited. Broadband Wireless,IN 185.28.180.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 185.63.148.0/22 AS15576 NTS NTS Workspace AG,CH 190.3.160.0/21 AS27975 SYNAPSIS COLOMBIA SAS,CO 190.124.252.0/22 AS7303 Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR 192.9.0.0/16 AS11479 BRM-SUN-AS - Sun Microsystems, Inc,US 192.25.10.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.11.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.13.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.14.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.34.152.0/21 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US 192.75.23.0/24 AS2579 AS2579 - Alcatel-Lucent,US 192.75.239.0/24 AS23498 CDSI - COGECODATA,CA 192.84.24.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.104.61.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 192.119.136.0/21 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US 192.131.233.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 192.149.81.0/24 AS14454 PERIMETER-ESECURITY - Perimeter eSecurity,US 192.154.32.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.154.64.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.166.32.0/20 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 192.245.195.0/24 AS7381 SUNGARDRS - SunGard Availability Services LP,US 192.252.252.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 193.9.59.0/24 AS1257 TELE2,SE 193.16.106.0/24 AS31539 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.16.145.0/24 AS31392 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.86.0/24 AS24751 MULTIFI-AS Jakobstadsnejdens Telefon Ab,FI 193.22.224.0/20 AS3322 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.238.0/23 AS62383 LDS-AS Lambrechts Data Services VOF,BE 193.26.213.0/24 AS31641 BYTEL-AS Bytel Ltd,GB 193.28.14.0/24 AS34309 LINK11 Link11 GmbH,DE 193.33.6.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.33.252.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.46.200.0/24 AS34243 WEBAGE Web Age Ltd,GB 193.93.6.0/23 AS35559 SOMEADDRESS Someaddress Networks Ltd,GB 193.111.229.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.149.2.0/23 AS15919 INTERHOST Servicios de Hosting en Internet S.A.,ES 193.160.16.0/22 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.161.157.0/24 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.164.152.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.178.196.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 193.186.193.0/24 AS158 ERI-AS - Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.,US 193.186.199.0/24 AS8437 UTA-AS Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT 193.188.252.0/24 AS8697 JTC-AS8697 Jordan Telecommunications Company,JO 193.200.244.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.201.244.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.245.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.246.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.202.8.0/21 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.202.9.0/24 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.223.103.0/24 AS3248 SIL-AT Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT 193.227.109.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.227.236.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.243.166.0/24 AS44093 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.0.116.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.0.117.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.6.252.0/24 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 194.9.8.0/23 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.9.8.0/24 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.33.11.0/24 AS8943 JUMP Jump Networks Ltd.,GB 194.39.78.0/23 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 194.49.17.0/24 AS13135 CREW-AS Wieske's Crew GmbH,DE 194.60.88.0/21 AS5089 NTL Virgin Media Limited,GB 194.63.152.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.79.36.0/22 AS3257 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA,DE 194.88.6.0/24 AS35093 RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO 194.88.226.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.99.67.0/24 AS9083 CARPENET carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH,DE 194.126.152.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.126.219.0/24 AS34545 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.126.233.0/24 AS31235 SKIWEBCENTER-AS SKIWEBCENTER SARL,FR 194.126.251.0/24 AS50818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.146.35.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.146.36.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.150.214.0/23 AS30880 SPACEDUMP-AS SpaceDump IT AB,SE 194.156.179.0/24 AS3209 VODANET Vodafone GmbH,DE 194.180.25.0/24 AS21358 ATOS-ORIGIN-DE-AS Atos Information Technology GmbH,DE 194.187.24.0/22 AS8856 UKRNET UkrNet Ltd,UA 195.8.48.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.48.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.119.0/24 AS34304 TEENTELECOM Teen Telecom SRL,RO 195.39.252.0/23 AS29004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.42.232.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 195.47.242.0/24 AS9050 RTD ROMTELECOM S.A,RO 195.54.166.0/23 AS51131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.85.194.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.85.201.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.110.0.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.128.240.0/23 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 195.149.119.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.189.174.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.216.234.0/24 AS31309 NMV-AS New Media Ventures BVBA,BE 195.234.156.0/24 AS25028 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.242.182.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.244.18.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.245.98.0/23 AS48918 GLOBALWAYS GLOBALWAYS AG,DE 196.2.224.0/22 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 196.3.182.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.3.183.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.22.8.0/24 AS27822 Emerging Markets Communications de Argentina S.R.L,AR 196.22.11.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 196.45.0.0/21 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.45.10.0/24 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, Inc.,US 198.74.11.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.13.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.38.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.39.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.40.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.192.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.163.214.0/24 AS21804 ACCESS-SK - Access Communications Co-operative Limited,CA 198.163.215.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.163.216.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 198.176.48.0/20 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US 198.176.208.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.209.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.210.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.211.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange Services,HK 198.252.165.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.166.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.167.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.168.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.169.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.254.96.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.96.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.100.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.104.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.85.9.0/24 AS852 ASN852 - TELUS Communications Inc.,CA 199.88.52.0/22 AS17018 QTS-SACRAMENTO-1 - Quality Investment Properties Sacramento, LLC,US 199.116.200.0/21 AS22830 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.120.150.0/24 AS30036 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp,US 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 200.1.112.0/24 AS29754 GO2TEL - GO2TEL.COM INC.,US 200.58.248.0/21 AS27849 200.81.48.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.49.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.50.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 202.8.106.0/24 AS9530 SHINSEGAE-AS SHINSEGAE I&C Co., Ltd.,KR 202.21.158.0/23 AS23728 202.21.158.0/24 AS23728 202.21.159.0/24 AS23728 202.53.138.0/24 AS4058 CITICTEL-CPC-AS4058 CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited,HK 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN 202.158.251.0/24 AS9255 CONNECTPLUS-AS Singapore Telecom,SG 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 203.160.48.0/21 AS38008 203.189.116.0/22 AS45606 203.189.116.0/24 AS45606 203.189.117.0/24 AS45606 203.189.118.0/24 AS45606 203.189.119.0/24 AS45606 204.10.88.0/21 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 204.10.94.0/23 AS30097 NUWAVE - NuWave,US 204.15.208.0/22 AS13706 COMPLETEWEBNET - CompleteWeb.Net LLC,US 204.16.96.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.97.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.98.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.99.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.69.144.0/24 AS27283 RJF-INTERNET - Raymond James Financial, Inc.,US 204.106.16.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 204.155.28.0/22 AS40925 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.187.11.0/24 AS51113 ELEKTA-AS Elekta,GB 204.225.173.0/24 AS6407 PRIMUS-AS6407 - Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.,CA 205.159.44.0/24 AS40157 ADESA-CORP-AS - ADESA Corp,US 205.166.231.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 205.211.160.0/24 AS30045 UHN-ASN - University Health Network,CA 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company,US 206.223.224.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 207.2.120.0/21 AS6221 USCYBERSITES - US Cybersites, Inc,US 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc.,US 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc.,US 207.254.128.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.128.0/24 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.136.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 208.66.64.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.65.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.66.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.67.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.67.132.0/22 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 208.68.180.0/22 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.69.192.0/23 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.69.195.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.75.152.0/21 AS32146 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.20.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.21.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.164.0/24 AS22659 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.166.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.84.232.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.234.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.237.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.238.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.93.144.0/21 AS30693 SERVERHUB-PHOENIX - Eonix Corporation,US 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 209.193.112.0/20 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications Company, LLC,US 209.209.51.0/24 AS18687 MPOWER-2 - MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,US 209.209.224.0/19 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.248.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.250.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.251.0/24 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.212.63.0/24 AS16467 ASN-NEXTWEB-R1 - Nextweb, Inc,US 209.234.112.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.114.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.116.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.117.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.118.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.119.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.120.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.121.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.122.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 212.119.32.0/19 AS12550 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.64.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.65.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.66.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.67.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.68.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.69.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.70.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.71.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.72.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.73.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.74.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.75.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.76.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.77.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.78.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.255.128.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 213.255.144.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 216.12.163.0/24 AS26627 AS-PILOSOFT - Pilosoft, Inc.,US 216.14.64.0/20 AS14728 MW-INDIANA - Mercury Wireless, LLC,US 216.99.178.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.180.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.181.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.182.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.183.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.184.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.185.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.186.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.187.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.188.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.99.191.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 216.146.0.0/19 AS11915 TELWEST-NETWORK-SVCS-STATIC - TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS LLC,US 216.152.24.0/22 AS22773 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US 216.170.96.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.101.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.104.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.105.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.234.132.0/24 AS14545 ADR-DRIVING-RECORDS - AMERICAN DRIVING RECORDS, INC.,US Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org 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 Jul 11 22:00:01 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:00:01 GMT Subject: BGP Update Report Message-ID: <201407112200.s6BM01SN024672@wattle.apnic.net> BGP Update Report Interval: 03-Jul-14 -to- 10-Jul-14 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS3292 148349 5.8% 321.8 -- TDC TDC A/S,DK 2 - AS12858 87308 3.4% 5135.8 -- MYNET A.S.,TR 3 - AS9829 82537 3.2% 87.0 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN 4 - AS8402 36478 1.4% 92.1 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom",RU 5 - AS54113 32961 1.3% 2746.8 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 6 - AS14287 26114 1.0% 4352.3 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 7 - AS57320 24897 1.0% 3556.7 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 8 - AS28573 23723 0.9% 7.7 -- NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 9 - AS23752 21693 0.8% 182.3 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 10 - AS27738 20173 0.8% 26.2 -- Ecuadortelecom S.A.,EC 11 - AS10620 18319 0.7% 8.0 -- Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO 12 - AS1659 14998 0.6% 652.1 -- ERX-TANET-ASN1 Tiawan Academic Network (TANet) Information Center,TW 13 - AS4775 13331 0.5% 238.1 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 14 - AS647 13280 0.5% 101.4 -- DNIC-ASBLK-00616-00665 - DoD Network Information Center,US 15 - AS38144 13250 0.5% 281.9 -- JALAWAVE-AS-ID PT Jalawave Cakrawala,ID 16 - AS25184 13052 0.5% 99.6 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 17 - AS47794 12205 0.5% 112.0 -- ATHEEB-AS Etihad Atheeb Telecom Company,SA 18 - AS7552 10780 0.4% 9.1 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN 19 - AS25620 10612 0.4% 87.0 -- COTAS LTDA.,BO 20 - AS3 10604 0.4% 134.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS6629 9901 0.4% 9901.0 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 2 - AS6459 8314 0.3% 8314.0 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 3 - AS12858 87308 3.4% 5135.8 -- MYNET A.S.,TR 4 - AS14287 26114 1.0% 4352.3 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 5 - AS57320 24897 1.0% 3556.7 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 6 - AS54465 8796 0.3% 2932.0 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 7 - AS26661 8265 0.3% 2755.0 -- JCPS-ASN - Jeffco Public Schools,US 8 - AS54113 32961 1.3% 2746.8 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 9 - AS35960 7002 0.3% 2334.0 -- CBH-NET-AS1 - City of Beverly Hills,US 10 - AS60032 1777 0.1% 1777.0 -- CCS SNC CCS,FR 11 - AS6306 1238 0.1% 1238.0 -- TELEFONICA VENEZOLANA, C.A.,VE 12 - AS47887 2418 0.1% 1209.0 -- NEU-AS AL-HADATHEH LIL-ITISALAT WA AL-TECHNOLOGIA CO.,JO 13 - AS18135 8035 0.3% 1147.9 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP 14 - AS3 1088 0.0% 5517.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 15 - AS42449 1075 0.0% 1075.0 -- ASN-MAIRIE_MULHOUSE Commune de Mulhouse,FR 16 - AS23295 910 0.0% 910.0 -- EA-01 - Extend America,US 17 - AS3 10604 0.4% 134.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 18 - AS23074 3454 0.1% 863.5 -- Petr�leo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras,BR 19 - AS53247 849 0.0% 849.0 -- Nolasco & Nonnenmacher Comercio e Rep. Ltda.,BR 20 - AS27477 2487 0.1% 829.0 -- IBMCCH-MIA-BS - IBM,US TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 23.235.34.0/24 14121 0.5% AS54113 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 2 - 23.235.38.0/24 14080 0.5% AS54113 -- FASTLY - Fastly,US 3 - 176.97.111.0/24 12354 0.5% AS57320 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 4 - 176.97.96.0/24 12353 0.5% AS57320 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 5 - 185.17.128.0/24 10417 0.4% AS3 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 6 - 78.109.192.0/20 9953 0.4% AS25184 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 7 - 192.58.232.0/24 9901 0.4% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 8 - 202.70.88.0/21 9789 0.4% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 9 - 202.70.64.0/21 9775 0.4% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 10 - 206.152.15.0/24 8794 0.3% AS54465 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 11 - 205.247.12.0/24 8314 0.3% AS6459 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 12 - 42.83.48.0/20 8023 0.3% AS18135 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP 13 - 199.254.0.0/21 7000 0.3% AS35960 -- CBH-NET-AS1 - City of Beverly Hills,US 14 - 120.28.62.0/24 6704 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 15 - 222.127.0.0/24 6313 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 16 - 46.53.64.0/19 5922 0.2% AS24814 -- SCS-AS Syrian Computer Society, scs,SY AS29386 -- EXT-PDN-STE-AS Syrian Telecommunications Establishment,SY 17 - 89.221.206.0/24 5250 0.2% AS41691 -- SUMTEL-AS-RIPE Summa Telecom LLC,RU 18 - 208.70.20.0/22 5232 0.2% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 19 - 216.162.0.0/20 5232 0.2% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 20 - 208.88.232.0/22 5228 0.2% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org eof-list at ripe.net apops at apops.net routing-wg at ripe.net afnog at afnog.org From SNaslund at medline.com Fri Jul 11 22:05:40 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:05:40 +0000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is not difficult. An Internet Service Provider is an entity that provides Internet connectivity to its customers for some consideration. If you are looking for a legal definition of an ISP you are not going to find (a satisfactory) one. The FCC does have specific rules that define carriers such as ILEC, CLEC, RLEC, and those have definitions. ISP is really a term that describes a line of business. There is no engineering definition of an ISP that is defined by any regulatory body that I am aware of. No, you don't need an AS number to be an ISP (or your own address space). In my early Internet days I was the ISP who sold service to a cable tv company who in turn sold internet service to their customers. I was the ISP to the cable company and they were the ISP to their customers. If you send money to someone to provide you with internet service, they are an ISP. Does not matter who manages the infrastructure or if their entire network was leased out. You can get into all the semantics about who is a "real ISP" but in the view of the public and most regulators, the ISP is the guy selling Internet access and that's it. Steven Naslund Chicago IL -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 4:40 PM To: Scott Helms Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Matt, > > No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. > You said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to > function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP > are pretty much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I > said nothing less and nothing more. > > I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many > of the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has > several ASNs for both historical and operational reasons, all I am > pointing out is that you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP > is in an eyeball network context and that view is inaccurate. > > Scott, I think the problem here is one of terminology, then. You seem to be discussing "ISP" as a business model; I'm talking about "ISP" as a network entity. Regardless of your business model, from the network perspective, if you do not have an AS number, you don't exist as a separate entity. So, I will grant you that you can print business cards that list you as an ISP without having an AS number. But from the perspective of the network, you don't exist as a separate entity; the only "ISP" involved in routing those packets from the perspective of the BGP-speaking core of the internet is your upstream. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, as it's all just a matter of how we define what an ISP is. Thanks! Matt > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach > <mpetach at netflight.com> > wrote: > >> I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a >> feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the >> internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are >> completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP >> is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. >> >> Matt >> On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to >>> residential and business customers. They belong to various service >>> provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. >>> They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an >>> ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that >>> have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way. >>> >>> >>> Scott Helms >>> Vice President of Technology >>> ZCorum >>> (678) 507-5000 >>> -------------------------------- >>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach >>> <mpetach at netflight.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually >>>> do bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Matt, >>>>> >>>>> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US >>>>> subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There >>>>> are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and >>>>> Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider >>>>> rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Scott Helms >>>>> Vice President of Technology >>>>> ZCorum >>>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach < >>>>> mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > [...] >>>>>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up >>>>>> > for >>>>>> a pipe >>>>>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that >>>>>> matter, an >>>>>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jima >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm sorry. >>>>>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>>>>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>>>>> >>>>>> There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to >>>>>> function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak >>>>>> BGP are pretty much at the top of the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support an AS number as an >>>>>> ISP, it is probably time to consider closing up shop and finding >>>>>> another line of work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > From patrick at ianai.net Fri Jul 11 22:07:54 2014 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:07:54 -0400 Subject: The Cidr Report In-Reply-To: <201407112200.s6BM00dO024655@wattle.apnic.net> References: <201407112200.s6BM00dO024655@wattle.apnic.net> Message-ID: <0980C762-2EBA-412E-94C6-B2B453D510F8@ianai.net> Does the CIDR report have a 510K prefix limit and crashed or something? :) -- TTFN, patrick On Jul 11, 2014, at 18:00 , cidr-report at potaroo.net wrote: > This report has been generated at Fri Jul 11 21:10:32 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. > > Recent Table History > Date Prefixes CIDR Agg > 04-07-14 507546 284271 > 05-07-14 508097 284317 > 06-07-14 508095 284519 > 07-07-14 508243 284914 > 08-07-14 508764 284695 > 09-07-14 508685 284695 > 10-07-14 0 284695 > 11-07-14 0 284695 > > > AS Summary > 0 Number of ASes in routing system > 0 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix > 3792 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS > AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > 0 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) > ÖØÿÿÿ : NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > > 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'). > > --- 11Jul14 --- > ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description > > Table 508685 284695 223990 44.0% All ASes > > AS28573 3792 139 3653 96.3% NET Serviços de Comunicação > S.A.,BR > AS6389 2951 80 2871 97.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - > BellSouth.net Inc.,US > AS17974 2789 186 2603 93.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT > Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID > AS22773 2664 191 2473 92.8% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - > Cox Communications Inc.,US > AS7029 2565 435 2130 83.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream > Communications Inc,US > AS4766 2969 933 2036 68.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR > AS18881 2071 41 2030 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR > AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath > Corporation,US > AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR > AS7545 2322 996 1326 57.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom > Limited,AU > AS10620 2901 1583 1318 45.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO > AS4755 1866 591 1275 68.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA > Communications formerly VSNL > is Leading ISP,IN > AS4323 1654 433 1221 73.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, > inc.,US > AS7552 1269 166 1103 86.9% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel > Corporation,VN > AS36998 1114 37 1077 96.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD > AS6983 1381 314 1067 77.3% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US > AS22561 1302 241 1061 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet > Holdings, Inc.,US > AS6147 1020 145 875 85.8% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE > AS4788 1027 156 871 84.8% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet > Service Provider,MY > AS24560 1149 332 817 71.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti > Airtel Ltd., Telemedia > Services,IN > AS7738 979 170 809 82.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR > AS4808 1216 408 808 66.4% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP > network China169 Beijing > Province Network,CN > AS9829 1592 825 767 48.2% BSNL-NIB National Internet > Backbone,IN > AS11492 1247 490 757 60.7% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US > AS18101 942 186 756 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN > Reliance Communications > Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN > AS8151 1451 698 753 51.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX > AS26615 863 128 735 85.2% Tim Celular S.A.,BR > AS855 774 58 716 92.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant > Regional Communications, > Inc.,CA > AS701 1443 730 713 49.4% UUNET - MCI Communications > Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon > Business,US > AS9808 1045 335 710 67.9% CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile > Communication Co.Ltd.,CN > > Total 52178 12027 40151 77.0% Top 30 total > > > Possible Bogus Routes > > 23.226.240.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 23.226.240.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 23.226.248.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 24.231.96.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA > 27.100.7.0/24 AS56096 > 41.73.1.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.2.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.10.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.11.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.12.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.13.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.14.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.15.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.16.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.18.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.20.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.73.21.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.76.48.0/21 AS36969 MTL-AS,MW > 41.78.120.0/23 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 - INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE CORPORATION,US > 41.78.236.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.78.237.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.78.238.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.78.239.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.189.96.0/20 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.190.72.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > 41.190.73.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > 41.190.74.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > 41.190.75.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > 41.191.108.0/22 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.191.108.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.191.109.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.191.110.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.191.111.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 41.223.208.0/22 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL > 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL > 62.133.39.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT > 62.133.44.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT > 64.25.16.0/23 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.25.20.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.25.21.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.25.22.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.25.27.0/24 AS7046 RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 64.111.160.0/20 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.160.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.161.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.162.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.167.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.169.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.170.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.171.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.172.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.173.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.174.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 64.111.175.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 65.75.216.0/23 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US > 65.75.217.0/24 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US > 65.111.1.0/24 AS32258 SDNGLOBAL - SDN Global,US > 66.6.176.0/20 AS13223 BBTECNETWORKS-HK RM18, 9/F., Kwan Yick Building Phase 1, 430-440A Des Voeux Rd. West.,HK > 66.55.96.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 66.55.98.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 66.55.99.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 66.55.100.0/22 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 66.55.102.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 66.55.104.0/21 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 66.180.64.0/21 AS32558 ZEUTER - Zeuter Development Corporation,CA > 66.187.240.0/20 AS14552 ACS-SOUTHEASTDATACENTER - Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,US > 66.205.224.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US > 66.251.128.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 66.251.133.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 66.251.134.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 66.251.136.0/21 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 66.251.140.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 66.251.141.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 66.251.142.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US > 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A.,IT > 72.19.0.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US > 74.112.100.0/22 AS16764 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.113.200.0/23 AS46939 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.52.0/22 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.52.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.52.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.53.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.54.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.54.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.114.55.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.115.124.0/23 AS46540 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.118.132.0/22 AS5117 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.120.212.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.120.214.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 74.121.24.0/22 AS36263 FORONA - Forona Technologies, Inc.,US > 77.243.80.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 77.243.81.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 77.243.88.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 77.243.91.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 77.243.94.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 77.243.95.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 80.78.133.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US > 80.78.134.0/23 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US > 80.78.134.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US > 80.78.135.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US > 80.250.32.0/22 AS37106 ODUA-AS,NG > 85.202.160.0/20 AS44404 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 89.31.24.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 89.31.26.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 89.31.28.0/22 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 89.207.8.0/21 AS3292 TDC TDC A/S,DK > 91.193.60.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 91.195.66.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 91.197.36.0/22 AS43359 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 91.199.90.0/24 AS44330 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 91.209.115.0/24 AS31103 KEYWEB-AS Keyweb AG,DE > 91.214.65.0/24 AS30822 MAGEAL-AS Private Enterprise Mageal,LT > 91.228.160.0/24 AS56815 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 91.239.157.0/24 AS24958 TBSH The Bunker Secure Hosting Limited,GB > 91.245.224.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > 91.245.232.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > 91.245.240.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > 91.245.248.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > 93.190.10.0/24 AS47254 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 95.215.140.0/22 AS48949 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 102.2.88.0/22 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > 103.6.108.0/22 AS37986 TULIP Tulip Telecom Ltd.,IN > 103.6.228.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP > 103.9.108.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP > 103.9.140.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > 103.9.141.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > 103.9.142.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > 103.9.143.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > 103.17.108.0/23 AS56301 MN-NDC-MN National Data Center building,MN > 103.18.76.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > 103.18.80.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK > 103.18.81.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK > 103.18.92.0/22 AS13269 > 103.18.92.0/24 AS13269 > 103.18.94.0/24 AS13269 > 103.18.248.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > 103.19.0.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > 103.20.100.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN > 103.20.101.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN > 103.25.120.0/22 AS13280 > 103.248.88.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP > 103.248.220.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP > 103.249.156.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP > 104.143.192.0/19 AS22676 TELENTIA - Telentia,US > 104.152.60.0/22 AS62626 NISP-AS - Neighborhood ISP,US > 108.174.208.0/20 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US > 110.44.16.0/24 AS13117 > 110.44.18.0/24 AS13117 > 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US > 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US > 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US > 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN > 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN > 124.158.28.0/22 AS45857 > 142.147.62.0/24 AS3958 AIRCANADA - Air Canada,CA > 162.218.168.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 162.218.175.0/24 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 163.47.23.0/24 AS2907 SINET-AS Research Organization of Information and Systems, National Institute of Informatics,JP > 166.93.0.0/16 AS23537 CRITIGEN - Micro Source, Inc.,US > 172.85.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.85.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.85.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.85.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.86.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.86.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.86.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.87.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.88.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group),CN > 176.111.168.0/22 AS50586 MACROSOLUTIONS MacroSolution SRL,RO > 176.124.32.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > 176.125.224.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > 182.237.25.0/24 AS10201 DWL-AS-IN Dishnet Wireless Limited. Broadband Wireless,IN > 185.28.180.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > 185.63.148.0/22 AS15576 NTS NTS Workspace AG,CH > 190.3.160.0/21 AS27975 SYNAPSIS COLOMBIA SAS,CO > 190.124.252.0/22 AS7303 Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR > 192.9.0.0/16 AS11479 BRM-SUN-AS - Sun Microsystems, Inc,US > 192.25.10.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > 192.25.11.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > 192.25.13.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > 192.25.14.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > 192.34.152.0/21 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US > 192.75.23.0/24 AS2579 AS2579 - Alcatel-Lucent,US > 192.75.239.0/24 AS23498 CDSI - COGECODATA,CA > 192.84.24.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 192.104.61.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US > 192.119.136.0/21 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US > 192.131.233.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US > 192.149.81.0/24 AS14454 PERIMETER-ESECURITY - Perimeter eSecurity,US > 192.154.32.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US > 192.154.64.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US > 192.166.32.0/20 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 192.245.195.0/24 AS7381 SUNGARDRS - SunGard Availability Services LP,US > 192.252.252.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US > 193.9.59.0/24 AS1257 TELE2,SE > 193.16.106.0/24 AS31539 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 193.16.145.0/24 AS31392 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 193.22.86.0/24 AS24751 MULTIFI-AS Jakobstadsnejdens Telefon Ab,FI > 193.22.224.0/20 AS3322 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 193.22.238.0/23 AS62383 LDS-AS Lambrechts Data Services VOF,BE > 193.26.213.0/24 AS31641 BYTEL-AS Bytel Ltd,GB > 193.28.14.0/24 AS34309 LINK11 Link11 GmbH,DE > 193.33.6.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.33.252.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.46.200.0/24 AS34243 WEBAGE Web Age Ltd,GB > 193.93.6.0/23 AS35559 SOMEADDRESS Someaddress Networks Ltd,GB > 193.111.229.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.149.2.0/23 AS15919 INTERHOST Servicios de Hosting en Internet S.A.,ES > 193.160.16.0/22 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO > 193.161.157.0/24 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO > 193.164.152.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.178.196.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE > 193.186.193.0/24 AS158 ERI-AS - Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.,US > 193.186.199.0/24 AS8437 UTA-AS Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT > 193.188.252.0/24 AS8697 JTC-AS8697 Jordan Telecommunications Company,JO > 193.200.244.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.201.244.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 193.201.245.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 193.201.246.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 193.202.8.0/21 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB > 193.202.9.0/24 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB > 193.223.103.0/24 AS3248 SIL-AT Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT > 193.227.109.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.227.236.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 193.243.166.0/24 AS44093 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 194.0.116.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA > 194.0.117.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA > 194.6.252.0/24 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE > 194.9.8.0/23 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE > 194.9.8.0/24 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE > 194.33.11.0/24 AS8943 JUMP Jump Networks Ltd.,GB > 194.39.78.0/23 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 194.49.17.0/24 AS13135 CREW-AS Wieske's Crew GmbH,DE > 194.60.88.0/21 AS5089 NTL Virgin Media Limited,GB > 194.63.152.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 194.79.36.0/22 AS3257 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA,DE > 194.88.6.0/24 AS35093 RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO > 194.88.226.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 194.99.67.0/24 AS9083 CARPENET carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH,DE > 194.126.152.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 194.126.219.0/24 AS34545 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 194.126.233.0/24 AS31235 SKIWEBCENTER-AS SKIWEBCENTER SARL,FR > 194.126.251.0/24 AS50818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 194.146.35.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR > 194.146.36.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR > 194.150.214.0/23 AS30880 SPACEDUMP-AS SpaceDump IT AB,SE > 194.156.179.0/24 AS3209 VODANET Vodafone GmbH,DE > 194.180.25.0/24 AS21358 ATOS-ORIGIN-DE-AS Atos Information Technology GmbH,DE > 194.187.24.0/22 AS8856 UKRNET UkrNet Ltd,UA > 195.8.48.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.8.48.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.8.119.0/24 AS34304 TEENTELECOM Teen Telecom SRL,RO > 195.39.252.0/23 AS29004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 195.42.232.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE > 195.47.242.0/24 AS9050 RTD ROMTELECOM S.A,RO > 195.54.166.0/23 AS51131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 195.85.194.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.85.201.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.110.0.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.128.240.0/23 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE > 195.149.119.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.189.174.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.216.234.0/24 AS31309 NMV-AS New Media Ventures BVBA,BE > 195.234.156.0/24 AS25028 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 195.242.182.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.244.18.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 195.245.98.0/23 AS48918 GLOBALWAYS GLOBALWAYS AG,DE > 196.2.224.0/22 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG > 196.3.182.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 196.3.183.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 196.22.8.0/24 AS27822 Emerging Markets Communications de Argentina S.R.L,AR > 196.22.11.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US > 196.45.0.0/21 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 196.45.10.0/24 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, Inc.,US > 198.74.11.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US > 198.74.13.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US > 198.74.38.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US > 198.74.39.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US > 198.74.40.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US > 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 198.97.192.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 198.163.214.0/24 AS21804 ACCESS-SK - Access Communications Co-operative Limited,CA > 198.163.215.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA > 198.163.216.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA > 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 198.176.48.0/20 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc.,US > 198.176.208.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US > 198.176.209.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US > 198.176.210.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US > 198.176.211.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US > 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange Services,HK > 198.252.165.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US > 198.252.166.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US > 198.252.167.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US > 198.252.168.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US > 198.252.169.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US > 198.254.96.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 198.254.96.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 198.254.100.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 198.254.104.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 199.85.9.0/24 AS852 ASN852 - TELUS Communications Inc.,CA > 199.88.52.0/22 AS17018 QTS-SACRAMENTO-1 - Quality Investment Properties Sacramento, LLC,US > 199.116.200.0/21 AS22830 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 199.120.150.0/24 AS30036 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp,US > 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US > 200.1.112.0/24 AS29754 GO2TEL - GO2TEL.COM INC.,US > 200.58.248.0/21 AS27849 > 200.81.48.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR > 200.81.49.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR > 200.81.50.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR > 202.8.106.0/24 AS9530 SHINSEGAE-AS SHINSEGAE I&C Co., Ltd.,KR > 202.21.158.0/23 AS23728 > 202.21.158.0/24 AS23728 > 202.21.159.0/24 AS23728 > 202.53.138.0/24 AS4058 CITICTEL-CPC-AS4058 CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited,HK > 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN > 202.158.251.0/24 AS9255 CONNECTPLUS-AS Singapore Telecom,SG > 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN > 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 > 203.160.48.0/21 AS38008 > 203.189.116.0/22 AS45606 > 203.189.116.0/24 AS45606 > 203.189.117.0/24 AS45606 > 203.189.118.0/24 AS45606 > 203.189.119.0/24 AS45606 > 204.10.88.0/21 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > 204.10.94.0/23 AS30097 NUWAVE - NuWave,US > 204.15.208.0/22 AS13706 COMPLETEWEBNET - CompleteWeb.Net LLC,US > 204.16.96.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 204.16.97.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 204.16.98.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 204.16.99.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 204.69.144.0/24 AS27283 RJF-INTERNET - Raymond James Financial, Inc.,US > 204.106.16.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > 204.155.28.0/22 AS40925 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 204.187.11.0/24 AS51113 ELEKTA-AS Elekta,GB > 204.225.173.0/24 AS6407 PRIMUS-AS6407 - Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.,CA > 205.159.44.0/24 AS40157 ADESA-CORP-AS - ADESA Corp,US > 205.166.231.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US > 205.211.160.0/24 AS30045 UHN-ASN - University Health Network,CA > 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company,US > 206.223.224.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA > 207.2.120.0/21 AS6221 USCYBERSITES - US Cybersites, Inc,US > 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc.,US > 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc.,US > 207.254.128.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM > 207.254.128.0/24 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM > 207.254.136.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM > 208.66.64.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.66.65.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.66.66.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.66.67.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.67.132.0/22 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > 208.68.180.0/22 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > 208.69.192.0/23 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US > 208.69.195.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US > 208.75.152.0/21 AS32146 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.76.20.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.76.21.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.77.164.0/24 AS22659 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.77.166.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > 208.84.232.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.84.234.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.84.237.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.84.238.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 208.93.144.0/21 AS30693 SERVERHUB-PHOENIX - Eonix Corporation,US > 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US > 209.193.112.0/20 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications Company, LLC,US > 209.209.51.0/24 AS18687 MPOWER-2 - MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,US > 209.209.224.0/19 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.209.248.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.209.250.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.209.251.0/24 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.212.63.0/24 AS16467 ASN-NEXTWEB-R1 - Nextweb, Inc,US > 209.234.112.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.114.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.116.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.117.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.118.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.119.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.120.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.121.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 209.234.122.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 212.119.32.0/19 AS12550 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.64.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.65.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.66.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.67.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.68.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.69.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.70.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.71.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.72.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.73.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.74.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.75.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.76.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.77.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.184.78.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 213.255.128.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG > 213.255.144.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG > 216.12.163.0/24 AS26627 AS-PILOSOFT - Pilosoft, Inc.,US > 216.14.64.0/20 AS14728 MW-INDIANA - Mercury Wireless, LLC,US > 216.99.178.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.180.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.181.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.182.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.183.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.184.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.185.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.186.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.187.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.188.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.99.191.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > 216.146.0.0/19 AS11915 TELWEST-NETWORK-SVCS-STATIC - TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS LLC,US > 216.152.24.0/22 AS22773 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US > 216.170.96.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US > 216.170.101.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US > 216.170.104.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US > 216.170.105.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US > 216.234.132.0/24 AS14545 ADR-DRIVING-RECORDS - AMERICAN DRIVING RECORDS, INC.,US > > > Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report > > ------------------------------------ > Copies of this report are mailed to: > nanog at nanog.org > eof-list at ripe.net > apops at apops.net > routing-wg at ripe.net > afnog at afnog.org From joelja at bogus.com Fri Jul 11 22:46:26 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:46:26 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaKhK8-r0YQ-99oPrFG-VMDq1ZCeNQCJSjA7Hqgz3ypYw@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C02AE5.1020402@ispn.net> <53C02F74.7060708@bogus.com> <53C035FD.1080408@ispn.net> <CAL9jLaaKhK8-r0YQ-99oPrFG-VMDq1ZCeNQCJSjA7Hqgz3ypYw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C06942.5010703@bogus.com> On 7/11/14 2:01 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote: >> joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM: >> >>> CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de >>> etré. > they do this with DNS changes for client requests... pushing a > customer to an endpoint reachable across one path vs another. (added > for clarification only) client requests are typically directed to a pop or distributed between pops using DNS based GTM, There are other methods (e.g. anycast selection). Exit selection from a pop is a forwarding decision. Assuming the availability of multiple paths, they choose which one to use. this may be simple best path, ecmp coin flipping, deliberately tuned metrics or so on... if 174 is having a bad day on the east coast for example you might to chose to favor 3356 as a path to foo large as. You might favor a decision which costs you the least as opposed to the one that offers the best performance. >>> If a pop has 174 3356 2914 7992 transit(s) chances are they can use any >>> one of them or all of them to get to foo other large transit as. >>> >> Yes, but no matter which network Netflix uses as an exit from their network, >> Verizon still has the final say on how it enters Verizon's network. If foo large AS can engage in traffic engineering that would bias one path selection vs another. Foo Large ASes peers has a distinct incentive to offload traffic bound for foo large as quickly as possible, and will do so at their earliest convenience. so the BGP traffic engineering the influence inbound path selection for the prefix being announced by foo large AS may not be the most influential decision (unless the withdraw it). They can of course deliberately constrain the path, engage in quos marking and queue management to the detriment of the traffic, or I suppose just drop it on the floor, but the later would generally be characterized as an outage. >> not really? verizon's held (for relationships they call 'settlement >> free interconnects') to a standard that includes essentially equal >> announcements across all common interconnects. Ideally this means vzb >> announces all 10,123 routes across all of the interconnects between >> 701 and network B... >> >> Netflix has several transit providers to choose from, at best they can try >> each one and see what delivers the best experience to their mutual > yup, netflix has some idea that "At time T path X-Y-Z-701 is better > than A-B-C-701" so they force some set of customers across this path > as best they can by telling these customers taht > X-Y-Z-701.stream.netflix.net == 1.2.3.4 is the right name/address > mapping for the content requested. > > If something happens during the dns TTL / decision process to change > DNS with traffic across the X-Y-Z-701 path though... it's not clear to > me that netflix can affect those active streams. If the pathway goes > away sure things shift around, if the path just gets congested... > whoops. > > On top of this, there are lots of folk over the peering-wars-years > that have shown they can influence peering discussions one way or the > other by pushing traffic across distinct points in the as graph, then > making press-hay about the mistreatment they are receiving. > > (NOTE NOTE NOTE: I have no idea if that's going on, I'm just making > the point that this very clearly has happened in the past with other > players) > >> customers. Of course, Verizon might change their routing policy tomorrow (or >> on-demand) and throw that all out of whack. My point is that Verizon >> advertises several ways to reach Verizon's network. If one path is >> 'inneficient' as Verizon states, Verizon is at fault for announcing that >> inefficient path. Netflix does not dictate Verizon's border routing policy, >> contrary to Verizon's claims. > it's not the inefficiency of the path, it's the (probably, maybe) > difference in capacity available vs other/alternate paths. > > -chris > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 286 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140711/290addd6/attachment-0001.pgp> From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 22:58:53 2014 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:58:53 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote: > Here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is not difficult. An Internet Service Provider is an entity that provides Internet connectivity to its customers for some consideration. > If you are looking for a legal definition of an ISP you are not going to find (a >satisfactory) one. The FCC does have specific rules that define carriers >such as ILEC, CLEC, RLEC, and those have definitions. ISP is really a term > that describes a line of business. There is no engineering definition of an > ISP that is defined by any regulatory body that I am aware of. Correct. "ISP" is not a specific technology or business. It is based on what is being sold. You can be selling customers a dial-up service where your customers are presented with a shell prompt over the dial-in terminal connected to a hosted Unix server you are renting with connectivity from a 56K leased line, and you are still an ISP. By common definitions, by the way, Youtube has been referred to as an ISP. An ISP is a company that generates revenue by providing connectivity to internet resources (in this case: streaming video). Usually ISP is used to refer to providers that are selling complete internet connectivity, however, not organizations that merely run one website providing entertainment or e-commerce. You can subdivide the idea of ISP into various related ideas such as "Online Service Provider", "Network Service Provider", "Broadband Service Provider", "E-mail service provider", "Mobile Data Provider", etc Which are more informative, but generally equally vague and informal. -- -JH From mpetach at netflight.com Sat Jul 12 02:22:52 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> > wrote: > > Here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is not difficult. An > Internet Service Provider is an entity that provides Internet connectivity > to its customers for some consideration. > > > If you are looking for a legal definition of an ISP you are not going to > find (a >satisfactory) one. The FCC does have specific rules that define > carriers > >such as ILEC, CLEC, RLEC, and those have definitions. ISP is really a > term > > that describes a line of business. There is no engineering definition > of an > > ISP that is defined by any regulatory body that I am aware of. > > Correct. "ISP" is not a specific technology or business. It is > based on what is being sold. > You can be selling customers a dial-up service where your customers > are presented with a shell prompt over the dial-in terminal connected > to a hosted Unix server you are renting with connectivity from a 56K > leased line, and you are still an ISP. > > By common definitions, by the way, Youtube has been referred to as an > ISP. An ISP is a company that generates revenue by providing > connectivity to internet resources (in this case: streaming video). > > Usually ISP is used to refer to providers that are selling complete > internet connectivity, however, not organizations that merely run one > website providing entertainment or e-commerce. > > You can subdivide the idea of ISP into various related ideas such as > "Online Service Provider", "Network Service Provider", "Broadband > Service Provider", "E-mail service provider", "Mobile Data > Provider", etc > > Which are more informative, but generally equally vague and informal. > > -- > -JH > > *sigh* Fine, fine, y'all are super-attached to your business-y definitions of ISP. I'll clarify my earlier point to eliminate this confusion. To the core of the internet, if you do not have an AS number, you do not exist. If your business does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP speaking core of the internet is concerned, there is no representation for your entity, no matter what acronym you attach to it.* There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate entity from your upstream provider from the network perspective. Matt From randy at psg.com Sat Jul 12 02:37:49 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:37:49 +0900 Subject: paleolithic inquiry In-Reply-To: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <m2wqbj2tfm.wl%randy@psg.com> > need to put a usr everything modem, yes a modem, using inbound ppp on a > freebsd 10 box and a pots line. > > anyone have the hacks for > o modem switch settings and > o /etc/ppp/ppp.conf i have received a few really good looking detailed answers which i will test when next in the colo and report or wiki. of course i received one "don't do that, you should not be painting a bikeshed at all, but building a doghouse." i figure that only one is not a bad noise level. thanks all randy From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 12 02:54:24 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:54:24 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> Matthew Petach wrote: > *sigh* > > Fine, fine, y'all are super-attached to your > business-y definitions of ISP. > > I'll clarify my earlier point to eliminate this > confusion. > > To the core of the internet, if you do not have > an AS number, you do not exist. If your business > does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP > speaking core of the internet is concerned, there > is no representation for your entity, no matter > what acronym you attach to it.* > > There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an > ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good > it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making > is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate > entity from your upstream provider from the network > perspective. For a lot of folks, "business-y definitions" actually matter. People write checks and send bills, to business entities, not AS numbers. Business entities get sued, taxed, and regulated - not AS numbers. And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From randy at psg.com Sat Jul 12 03:08:57 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:08:57 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> > And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" > (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell > access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up > services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite well-known history? or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix shell != internet. randy From randy at psg.com Sat Jul 12 03:18:03 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:18:03 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> >> And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" >> (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell >> access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up >> services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. > yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite > well-known history? > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > shell != internet. btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant achievement. randy From knife at toaster.net Sat Jul 12 04:45:50 2014 From: knife at toaster.net (Sean Lazar) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:45:50 -0700 Subject: paleolithic inquiry In-Reply-To: <m2wqbj2tfm.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2wqbj2tfm.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <F4C8886E-A76C-4216-9541-C0ADEDDDE3EC@toaster.net> I think we should paint the garden shed blue... > On Jul 11, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > > of course i received one "don't do that, you should not be painting a > bikeshed at all, but building a doghouse." i figure that only one is > not a bad noise level. From owen at delong.com Sat Jul 12 05:19:01 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:19:01 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRx0yqsPGPDd1VppTXYi63TrTmjg0jXNXWfq=4xvyZn=SQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> <CAMrdfRx0yqsPGPDd1VppTXYi63TrTmjg0jXNXWfq=4xvyZn=SQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1BD4FB91-BEAD-4CA5-9C56-8F048FBF5A43@delong.com> I was speaking specifically of the cases where they are already grouped at a central location such as the 9 in Salt Lake City or the 19 in Denver mentioned in the example to which I responded. I’m pretty sure that in the case where they are already grouped into a less populous exchange point, there is no issue of geography, especially, e.g. SLC or DEN as mentioned. Owen On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Owen, > > That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. Where possible the smaller operators often do form groups and partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering more distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP individually. There have been many attempts at creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad. > > > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at jima.us> wrote: > > > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > >> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > >> http://www.lariat.net/) > > > > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two months ago: > > > > http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/ > > > > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best. > > > > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. > > > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > > > Jima > > I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange. > > For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. > > Owen > > From owen at delong.com Sat Jul 12 05:31:39 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:31:39 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetingh! ouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <FD92D9E5-4CFA-4981-A229-EE44F37BE927@delong.com> On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: >>> And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" >>> (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell >>> access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up >>> services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. >> yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite >> well-known history? >> or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix >> shell != internet. > > btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected > to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free > stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs > commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant > achievement. > > randy Not to take away from Barry, but around that same time, some of us left coasts were also helping to build Netcom as a viable commercial entity providing shell and later PPP and dedicated line access (DS0, T1). Owen From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Sat Jul 12 06:28:29 2014 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 00:28:29 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com> Message-ID: <20140712062829.GA13152@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:50:22AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: [...] > I'm always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don't form > consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to > a larger remote exchange. In my experience, the price of buying transit from established players has always been close to the combined price of buying a circuit and establishing some form of presence at a remote exchange. Close enough that everyone was willing to just pay for transit without the added administrative overhead of the transit consortium. I've seen such transit consortiums that pretend to be exchange points as well -- but that's a slightly different beast. I've also seen where the folks that should peer don't because they all have mutual transit providers, and the cost of interconnection is higher than the incremental transit costs for their cross-ASN traffic. You can't argue "increased route splay" when the circuit costs dominate the equation. Internet in the hinterlands is a tough ride compared to fiber-rich areas... But it keeps getting better, so there is hope. From george.herbert at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 10:47:56 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 03:47:56 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <FD92D9E5-4CFA-4981-A229-EE44F37BE927@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetingh! ouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> <FD92D9E5-4CFA-4981-A229-EE44F37BE927@delong.com> Message-ID: <C6A8FB31-2CA8-437D-8D26-2685E375AAF7@gmail.com> > On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > >>>> And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" >>>> (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell >>>> access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up >>>> services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. >>> yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite >>> well-known history? >>> or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix >>> shell != internet. >> >> btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected >> to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free >> stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs >> commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant >> achievement. >> >> randy > > Not to take away from Barry, but around that same time, some of us left coasts were also helping to build Netcom as a viable commercial entity providing shell and later PPP and dedicated line access (DS0, T1). > > Owen ...and CRL, and shortly after Netcom came Scruznet, and ... (Still giggling at how many times CRL got the intersection of Market/Geary/Kearny dug up in the early 90s bringing fiber in...). George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 12 11:16:39 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:16:39 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53C11917.2070600@meetinghouse.net> Hi Randy, Randy Bush wrote: >> And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" >> (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell >> access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up >> services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. > yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite > well-known history? umm what history am I re-writing? http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ - is as good a source as any for Internet history, which says this under 1990 "The World comes on-line (world.std.com), becoming the first commercial provider of Internet dial-up access says" ok - one can quibble 1989 (what Barry states on World's home page) PSInet was very late 1989, so there was that, I believe UUnet was 1990 What I did forget was NEARnet - which embarrasses me, since I was at BBN at the time. But, at first, NEARnet limited access to the NSFnet backbone to it's non-commercial customers (at least that was the policy - I'm not sure that filtering was ever really turned on in the gateways). I don't recall whether CSnet had any commercial members. > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > shell != internet. > well now we get to rehash to very old definitional distinction between "Internet Access Provider" and "Internet Service Provider" and yes, if a service provider takes money, to provide access to the Internet in some way, shape, manner, or form, yes - that's providing Internet "access" or "service" - and as soon as dial-up included PPP, then that's a non-issue > btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected > to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free > stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs > commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant > achievement. The other service Barry provided was pushing the whole issue of commercial access to the backbone. That was kind of epic. And yes, they're still going strong. I still maintain an account - it's my backup for the rare case that I need a separate site for diagnosing issues with our cluster. Cheers, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jul 12 15:33:13 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700." <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62677.1405179193@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700, Matthew Petach said: > ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good > it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making > is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate > entity from your upstream provider from the network > perspective. If there's a problem, you're welcome to insist on calling his upstream's NOC and listen to them say that address is properly SWIP'ed to a customer until they're blue in the face because you claim the customer doesn't exist. The rest of us will go ahead and call the customer about the errant host on their network. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140712/2124018d/attachment.pgp> From jra at baylink.com Sat Jul 12 18:08:32 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <14534986.6040.1405188512711.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> > I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a > feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the > internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are > completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP > is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. Those things are all true, Matt. But they are orthogonal to "are you an ISP" (for any definition of ISP). Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Sat Jul 12 18:11:13 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Cidr Report In-Reply-To: <0980C762-2EBA-412E-94C6-B2B453D510F8@ianai.net> Message-ID: <6294684.6042.1405188673425.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Well, probably 512k, but... ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> > To: cidr-report at potaroo.net > Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 6:07:54 PM > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report > Does the CIDR report have a 510K prefix limit and crashed or > something? > > :) > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > On Jul 11, 2014, at 18:00 , cidr-report at potaroo.net wrote: > > > This report has been generated at Fri Jul 11 21:10:32 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this > > report. > > > > Recent Table History > > Date Prefixes CIDR Agg > > 04-07-14 507546 284271 > > 05-07-14 508097 284317 > > 06-07-14 508095 284519 > > 07-07-14 508243 284914 > > 08-07-14 508764 284695 > > 09-07-14 508685 284695 > > 10-07-14 0 284695 > > 11-07-14 0 284695 > > > > > > AS Summary > > 0 Number of ASes in routing system > > 0 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix > > 3792 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS > > AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > 0 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) > > ÖØÿÿÿ : NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > > > > > 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'). > > > > --- 11Jul14 --- > > ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description > > > > Table 508685 284695 223990 44.0% All ASes > > > > AS28573 3792 139 3653 96.3% NET Serviços de Comunicação > > S.A.,BR > > AS6389 2951 80 2871 97.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - > > BellSouth.net Inc.,US > > AS17974 2789 186 2603 93.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT > > Telekomunikasi > > Indonesia,ID > > AS22773 2664 191 2473 92.8% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - > > Cox Communications > > Inc.,US > > AS7029 2565 435 2130 83.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream > > Communications Inc,US > > AS4766 2969 933 2036 68.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR > > AS18881 2071 41 2030 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR > > AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath > > Corporation,US > > AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR > > AS7545 2322 996 1326 57.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom > > Limited,AU > > AS10620 2901 1583 1318 45.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO > > AS4755 1866 591 1275 68.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA > > Communications > > formerly VSNL > > is Leading ISP,IN > > AS4323 1654 433 1221 73.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, > > inc.,US > > AS7552 1269 166 1103 86.9% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel > > Corporation,VN > > AS36998 1114 37 1077 96.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD > > AS6983 1381 314 1067 77.3% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US > > AS22561 1302 241 1061 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet > > Holdings, Inc.,US > > AS6147 1020 145 875 85.8% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE > > AS4788 1027 156 871 84.8% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet > > Service Provider,MY > > AS24560 1149 332 817 71.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti > > Airtel Ltd., Telemedia > > Services,IN > > AS7738 979 170 809 82.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR > > AS4808 1216 408 808 66.4% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP > > network China169 > > Beijing > > Province Network,CN > > AS9829 1592 825 767 48.2% BSNL-NIB National Internet > > Backbone,IN > > AS11492 1247 490 757 60.7% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US > > AS18101 942 186 756 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN > > Reliance > > Communications > > Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN > > AS8151 1451 698 753 51.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX > > AS26615 863 128 735 85.2% Tim Celular S.A.,BR > > AS855 774 58 716 92.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant > > Regional > > Communications, > > Inc.,CA > > AS701 1443 730 713 49.4% UUNET - MCI Communications > > Services, Inc. d/b/a > > Verizon > > Business,US > > AS9808 1045 335 710 67.9% CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile > > Communication > > Co.Ltd.,CN > > > > Total 52178 12027 40151 77.0% Top 30 total > > > > > > Possible Bogus Routes > > > > 23.226.240.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 23.226.240.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 23.226.248.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 24.231.96.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA > > 27.100.7.0/24 AS56096 > > 41.73.1.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.2.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.10.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.11.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.12.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.13.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.14.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.15.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.16.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.18.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.20.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.73.21.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.76.48.0/21 AS36969 MTL-AS,MW > > 41.78.120.0/23 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 - INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE > > CORPORATION,US > > 41.78.236.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.78.237.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.78.238.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.78.239.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.189.96.0/20 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.190.72.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > > 41.190.73.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > > 41.190.74.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > > 41.190.75.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG > > 41.191.108.0/22 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.191.108.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.191.109.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.191.110.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.191.111.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 41.223.208.0/22 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL > > 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL > > 62.133.39.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT > > 62.133.44.0/24 AS3269 ASN-IBSNAZ Telecom Italia S.p.a.,IT > > 64.25.16.0/23 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.25.20.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.25.21.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.25.22.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.25.27.0/24 AS7046 RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI > > Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 64.111.160.0/20 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.160.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.161.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.162.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.167.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.169.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.170.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.171.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.172.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.173.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.174.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 64.111.175.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 65.75.216.0/23 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US > > 65.75.217.0/24 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US > > 65.111.1.0/24 AS32258 SDNGLOBAL - SDN Global,US > > 66.6.176.0/20 AS13223 BBTECNETWORKS-HK RM18, 9/F., Kwan Yick > > Building Phase 1, 430-440A Des Voeux Rd. West.,HK > > 66.55.96.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 66.55.98.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 66.55.99.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 66.55.100.0/22 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 66.55.102.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 66.55.104.0/21 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 66.180.64.0/21 AS32558 ZEUTER - Zeuter Development > > Corporation,CA > > 66.187.240.0/20 AS14552 ACS-SOUTHEASTDATACENTER - Affiliated > > Computer Services, Inc.,US > > 66.205.224.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, > > Inc.,US > > 66.251.128.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 66.251.133.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 66.251.134.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 66.251.136.0/21 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 66.251.140.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 66.251.141.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 66.251.142.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge > > Networks,US > > 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A.,IT > > 72.19.0.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US > > 74.112.100.0/22 AS16764 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.113.200.0/23 AS46939 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.52.0/22 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.52.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.52.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.53.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.54.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.54.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.114.55.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.115.124.0/23 AS46540 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.118.132.0/22 AS5117 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.120.212.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.120.214.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 74.121.24.0/22 AS36263 FORONA - Forona Technologies, Inc.,US > > 77.243.80.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 77.243.81.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 77.243.88.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 77.243.91.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 77.243.94.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 77.243.95.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 80.78.133.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies > > Satellites, Inc.,US > > 80.78.134.0/23 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies > > Satellites, Inc.,US > > 80.78.134.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies > > Satellites, Inc.,US > > 80.78.135.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies > > Satellites, Inc.,US > > 80.250.32.0/22 AS37106 ODUA-AS,NG > > 85.202.160.0/20 AS44404 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 89.31.24.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 89.31.26.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 89.31.28.0/22 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 89.207.8.0/21 AS3292 TDC TDC A/S,DK > > 91.193.60.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 91.195.66.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 91.197.36.0/22 AS43359 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 91.199.90.0/24 AS44330 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 91.209.115.0/24 AS31103 KEYWEB-AS Keyweb AG,DE > > 91.214.65.0/24 AS30822 MAGEAL-AS Private Enterprise Mageal,LT > > 91.228.160.0/24 AS56815 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 91.239.157.0/24 AS24958 TBSH The Bunker Secure Hosting > > Limited,GB > > 91.245.224.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > > 91.245.232.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > > 91.245.240.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > > 91.245.248.0/21 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > > 93.190.10.0/24 AS47254 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 95.215.140.0/22 AS48949 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 102.2.88.0/22 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > > 103.6.108.0/22 AS37986 TULIP Tulip Telecom Ltd.,IN > > 103.6.228.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP > > 103.9.108.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP > > 103.9.140.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > > 103.9.141.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > > 103.9.142.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > > 103.9.143.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU > > 103.17.108.0/23 AS56301 MN-NDC-MN National Data Center > > building,MN > > 103.18.76.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > > 103.18.80.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange > > Center,HK > > 103.18.81.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange > > Center,HK > > 103.18.92.0/22 AS13269 > > 103.18.92.0/24 AS13269 > > 103.18.94.0/24 AS13269 > > 103.18.248.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > > 103.19.0.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > > 103.20.100.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless > > Limited,IN > > 103.20.101.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless > > Limited,IN > > 103.25.120.0/22 AS13280 > > 103.248.88.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET > > Corporation,JP > > 103.248.220.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP > > 103.249.156.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET > > Corporation,JP > > 104.143.192.0/19 AS22676 TELENTIA - Telentia,US > > 104.152.60.0/22 AS62626 NISP-AS - Neighborhood ISP,US > > 108.174.208.0/20 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, > > Inc.,US > > 110.44.16.0/24 AS13117 > > 110.44.18.0/24 AS13117 > > 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, > > Inc,US > > 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, > > Inc,US > > 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, > > Inc,US > > 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications > > formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN > > 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong > > Street,CN > > 124.158.28.0/22 AS45857 > > 142.147.62.0/24 AS3958 AIRCANADA - Air Canada,CA > > 162.218.168.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 162.218.175.0/24 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 163.47.23.0/24 AS2907 SINET-AS Research Organization of > > Information and Systems, National Institute of Informatics,JP > > 166.93.0.0/16 AS23537 CRITIGEN - Micro Source, Inc.,US > > 172.85.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.85.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.85.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.85.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.86.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.86.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.86.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.87.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.88.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI > > 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group),CN > > 176.111.168.0/22 AS50586 MACROSOLUTIONS MacroSolution SRL,RO > > 176.124.32.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > > 176.125.224.0/19 AS39906 COPROSYS CoProSys a.s.,CZ > > 182.237.25.0/24 AS10201 DWL-AS-IN Dishnet Wireless Limited. > > Broadband Wireless,IN > > 185.28.180.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP > > 185.63.148.0/22 AS15576 NTS NTS Workspace AG,CH > > 190.3.160.0/21 AS27975 SYNAPSIS COLOMBIA SAS,CO > > 190.124.252.0/22 AS7303 Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR > > 192.9.0.0/16 AS11479 BRM-SUN-AS - Sun Microsystems, Inc,US > > 192.25.10.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > > 192.25.11.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > > 192.25.13.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > > 192.25.14.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US > > 192.34.152.0/21 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, > > Inc.,US > > 192.75.23.0/24 AS2579 AS2579 - Alcatel-Lucent,US > > 192.75.239.0/24 AS23498 CDSI - COGECODATA,CA > > 192.84.24.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > > 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 192.104.61.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications > > Inc,US > > 192.119.136.0/21 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, > > Inc.,US > > 192.131.233.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, > > Inc.,US > > 192.149.81.0/24 AS14454 PERIMETER-ESECURITY - Perimeter > > eSecurity,US > > 192.154.32.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US > > 192.154.64.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US > > 192.166.32.0/20 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 192.245.195.0/24 AS7381 SUNGARDRS - SunGard Availability > > Services LP,US > > 192.252.252.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, > > Inc.,US > > 193.9.59.0/24 AS1257 TELE2,SE > > 193.16.106.0/24 AS31539 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 193.16.145.0/24 AS31392 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 193.22.86.0/24 AS24751 MULTIFI-AS Jakobstadsnejdens Telefon > > Ab,FI > > 193.22.224.0/20 AS3322 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 193.22.238.0/23 AS62383 LDS-AS Lambrechts Data Services > > VOF,BE > > 193.26.213.0/24 AS31641 BYTEL-AS Bytel Ltd,GB > > 193.28.14.0/24 AS34309 LINK11 Link11 GmbH,DE > > 193.33.6.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > > 193.33.252.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 193.46.200.0/24 AS34243 WEBAGE Web Age Ltd,GB > > 193.93.6.0/23 AS35559 SOMEADDRESS Someaddress Networks Ltd,GB > > 193.111.229.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 193.149.2.0/23 AS15919 INTERHOST Servicios de Hosting en > > Internet S.A.,ES > > 193.160.16.0/22 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO > > 193.161.157.0/24 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO > > 193.164.152.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 193.178.196.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & > > Connectivity GmbH,DE > > 193.186.193.0/24 AS158 ERI-AS - Ericsson Network Systems, > > Inc.,US > > 193.186.199.0/24 AS8437 UTA-AS Tele2 Telecommunication > > GmbH,AT > > 193.188.252.0/24 AS8697 JTC-AS8697 Jordan Telecommunications > > Company,JO > > 193.200.244.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 193.201.244.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 193.201.245.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 193.201.246.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 193.202.8.0/21 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom > > International Ltd,GB > > 193.202.9.0/24 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom > > International Ltd,GB > > 193.223.103.0/24 AS3248 SIL-AT Tele2 Telecommunication > > GmbH,AT > > 193.227.109.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 193.227.236.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 193.243.166.0/24 AS44093 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 194.0.116.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA > > 194.0.117.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA > > 194.6.252.0/24 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE > > 194.9.8.0/23 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE > > 194.9.8.0/24 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE > > 194.33.11.0/24 AS8943 JUMP Jump Networks Ltd.,GB > > 194.39.78.0/23 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 194.49.17.0/24 AS13135 CREW-AS Wieske's Crew GmbH,DE > > 194.60.88.0/21 AS5089 NTL Virgin Media Limited,GB > > 194.63.152.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 194.79.36.0/22 AS3257 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA,DE > > 194.88.6.0/24 AS35093 RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA > > California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO > > 194.88.226.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 194.99.67.0/24 AS9083 CARPENET carpeNet Information > > Technologies GmbH,DE > > 194.126.152.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 194.126.219.0/24 AS34545 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 194.126.233.0/24 AS31235 SKIWEBCENTER-AS SKIWEBCENTER SARL,FR > > 194.126.251.0/24 AS50818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 194.146.35.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR > > 194.146.36.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR > > 194.150.214.0/23 AS30880 SPACEDUMP-AS SpaceDump IT AB,SE > > 194.156.179.0/24 AS3209 VODANET Vodafone GmbH,DE > > 194.180.25.0/24 AS21358 ATOS-ORIGIN-DE-AS Atos Information > > Technology GmbH,DE > > 194.187.24.0/22 AS8856 UKRNET UkrNet Ltd,UA > > 195.8.48.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > > 195.8.48.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US > > 195.8.119.0/24 AS34304 TEENTELECOM Teen Telecom SRL,RO > > 195.39.252.0/23 AS29004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 195.42.232.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & > > Connectivity GmbH,DE > > 195.47.242.0/24 AS9050 RTD ROMTELECOM S.A,RO > > 195.54.166.0/23 AS51131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 195.85.194.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.85.201.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.110.0.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.128.240.0/23 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE > > 195.149.119.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.189.174.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.216.234.0/24 AS31309 NMV-AS New Media Ventures BVBA,BE > > 195.234.156.0/24 AS25028 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 195.242.182.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.244.18.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 195.245.98.0/23 AS48918 GLOBALWAYS GLOBALWAYS AG,DE > > 196.2.224.0/22 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG > > 196.3.182.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 196.3.183.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 196.22.8.0/24 AS27822 Emerging Markets Communications de > > Argentina S.R.L,AR > > 196.22.11.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies > > Satellites, Inc.,US > > 196.45.0.0/21 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 196.45.10.0/24 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, > > Inc.,US > > 198.74.11.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US > > 198.74.13.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US > > 198.74.38.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet > > Services,US > > 198.74.39.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet > > Services,US > > 198.74.40.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet > > Services,US > > 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 198.97.192.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 198.163.214.0/24 AS21804 ACCESS-SK - Access Communications > > Co-operative Limited,CA > > 198.163.215.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA > > 198.163.216.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA > > 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 198.176.48.0/20 AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, > > Inc.,US > > 198.176.208.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & > > Gold Inc.,US > > 198.176.209.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & > > Gold Inc.,US > > 198.176.210.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & > > Gold Inc.,US > > 198.176.211.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & > > Gold Inc.,US > > 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange > > Services,HK > > 198.252.165.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter > > Communications,US > > 198.252.166.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter > > Communications,US > > 198.252.167.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter > > Communications,US > > 198.252.168.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter > > Communications,US > > 198.252.169.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter > > Communications,US > > 198.254.96.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 198.254.96.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 198.254.100.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 198.254.104.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 199.85.9.0/24 AS852 ASN852 - TELUS Communications Inc.,CA > > 199.88.52.0/22 AS17018 QTS-SACRAMENTO-1 - Quality Investment > > Properties Sacramento, LLC,US > > 199.116.200.0/21 AS22830 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 199.120.150.0/24 AS30036 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - > > Mediacom Communications Corp,US > > 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network > > Information Center,US > > 200.1.112.0/24 AS29754 GO2TEL - GO2TEL.COM INC.,US > > 200.58.248.0/21 AS27849 > > 200.81.48.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones > > Interactivas S.A.,AR > > 200.81.49.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones > > Interactivas S.A.,AR > > 200.81.50.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones > > Interactivas S.A.,AR > > 202.8.106.0/24 AS9530 SHINSEGAE-AS SHINSEGAE I&C Co., Ltd.,KR > > 202.21.158.0/23 AS23728 > > 202.21.158.0/24 AS23728 > > 202.21.159.0/24 AS23728 > > 202.53.138.0/24 AS4058 CITICTEL-CPC-AS4058 CITIC Telecom > > International CPC Limited,HK > > 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 > > Beijing Province Network,CN > > 202.158.251.0/24 AS9255 CONNECTPLUS-AS Singapore Telecom,SG > > 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN > > 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 > > 203.160.48.0/21 AS38008 > > 203.189.116.0/22 AS45606 > > 203.189.116.0/24 AS45606 > > 203.189.117.0/24 AS45606 > > 203.189.118.0/24 AS45606 > > 203.189.119.0/24 AS45606 > > 204.10.88.0/21 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, > > Inc.,US > > 204.10.94.0/23 AS30097 NUWAVE - NuWave,US > > 204.15.208.0/22 AS13706 COMPLETEWEBNET - CompleteWeb.Net > > LLC,US > > 204.16.96.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 204.16.97.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 204.16.98.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 204.16.99.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 204.69.144.0/24 AS27283 RJF-INTERNET - Raymond James > > Financial, Inc.,US > > 204.106.16.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > > 204.155.28.0/22 AS40925 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 204.187.11.0/24 AS51113 ELEKTA-AS Elekta,GB > > 204.225.173.0/24 AS6407 PRIMUS-AS6407 - Primus > > Telecommunications Canada Inc.,CA > > 205.159.44.0/24 AS40157 ADESA-CORP-AS - ADESA Corp,US > > 205.166.231.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream > > Communications Inc,US > > 205.211.160.0/24 AS30045 UHN-ASN - University Health > > Network,CA > > 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a > > NetLabs LLC Company,US > > 206.223.224.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA > > 207.2.120.0/21 AS6221 USCYBERSITES - US Cybersites, Inc,US > > 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > > 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > > 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > > 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > > 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US > > 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc.,US > > 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc.,US > > 207.254.128.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM > > 207.254.128.0/24 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM > > 207.254.136.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM > > 208.66.64.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.66.65.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.66.66.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.66.67.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.67.132.0/22 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, > > Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US > > 208.68.180.0/22 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > > 208.69.192.0/23 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, > > Inc,US > > 208.69.195.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, > > Inc,US > > 208.75.152.0/21 AS32146 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.76.20.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.76.21.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.77.164.0/24 AS22659 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.77.166.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US > > 208.84.232.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.84.234.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.84.237.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.84.238.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 208.93.144.0/21 AS30693 SERVERHUB-PHOENIX - Eonix > > Corporation,US > > 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, > > Inc,US > > 209.193.112.0/20 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications > > Company, LLC,US > > 209.209.51.0/24 AS18687 MPOWER-2 - MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS > > CORP.,US > > 209.209.224.0/19 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.209.248.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.209.250.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.209.251.0/24 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.212.63.0/24 AS16467 ASN-NEXTWEB-R1 - Nextweb, Inc,US > > 209.234.112.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.114.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.116.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.117.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.118.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.119.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.120.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.121.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 209.234.122.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 212.119.32.0/19 AS12550 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.64.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.65.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.66.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.67.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.68.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.69.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.70.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.71.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.72.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.73.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.74.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.75.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.76.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.77.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.184.78.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 213.255.128.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG > > 213.255.144.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG > > 216.12.163.0/24 AS26627 AS-PILOSOFT - Pilosoft, Inc.,US > > 216.14.64.0/20 AS14728 MW-INDIANA - Mercury Wireless, LLC,US > > 216.99.178.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.180.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.181.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.182.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.183.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.184.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.185.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.186.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.187.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.188.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.99.191.0/24 AS23503 -Reserved AS-,ZZ > > 216.146.0.0/19 AS11915 TELWEST-NETWORK-SVCS-STATIC - TEL WEST > > COMMUNICATIONS LLC,US > > 216.152.24.0/22 AS22773 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox > > Communications Inc.,US > > 216.170.96.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks > > Inc.,US > > 216.170.101.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks > > Inc.,US > > 216.170.104.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks > > Inc.,US > > 216.170.105.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks > > Inc.,US > > 216.234.132.0/24 AS14545 ADR-DRIVING-RECORDS - AMERICAN > > DRIVING RECORDS, INC.,US > > > > > > Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Copies of this report are mailed to: > > nanog at nanog.org > > eof-list at ripe.net > > apops at apops.net > > routing-wg at ripe.net > > afnog at afnog.org -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Sat Jul 12 18:12:58 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> > To the core of the internet, if you do not have > an AS number, you do not exist. If your business > does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP > speaking core of the internet is concerned, there > is no representation for your entity, no matter > what acronym you attach to it.* > > There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an > ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good > it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making > is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate > entity from your upstream provider from the network > perspective. Ok. Correct. >From the viewpoint of the context of this thread... why was that pertinent again? :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From mpetach at netflight.com Sat Jul 12 19:28:47 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:28:47 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> > > > To the core of the internet, if you do not have > > an AS number, you do not exist. If your business > > does not have an AS number *as far as the BGP > > speaking core of the internet is concerned, there > > is no representation for your entity, no matter > > what acronym you attach to it.* > > > > There. Confusion over. You can call yourself an > > ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good > > it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making > > is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate > > entity from your upstream provider from the network > > perspective. > > Ok. Correct. > > From the viewpoint of the context of this thread... why was that > pertinent again? :-) > I totally don't remember. I just hit a stubborn streak. Now we're so far off in the weeds, I can't even see where we started from. ^_^;; Matt > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > > From joly at punkcast.com Sat Jul 12 20:02:57 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> Now we're > so far off in the weeds, I can't even > see where we started from. ^_^;; > What I'd like to know is 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation 4) by regulation? j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 12 21:09:06 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:09:06 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> Joly MacFie wrote: > Now we're >> so far off in the weeds, I can't even >> see where we started from. ^_^;; >> > > > What I'd like to know is > > 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. > 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and > 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation > 4) by regulation? > > Ditto. These questions really get to the nub of the current issues! Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From bbqroast at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 19:54:15 2014 From: bbqroast at gmail.com (mcfbbqroast .) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:54:15 +1200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Message-ID: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> One thing I've noted from those that support Verizon in this thread is that they often talk about Netflix's policy being unfair on small ISPs. Verizon is not a small ISP. Small ISPs seem happy peering with Netflix when they can (in fact they seem happy peering with anyone given there costs of transit) or getting a cache if they're big enough. My way of thinking it always has been that you are an ISP. An INTERNET service provider. As such you must make a best effort attempt to connect your customers to the internet at the speed you advertise. Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative content market. From karsten_thomann at linfre.de Sat Jul 12 20:51:43 2014 From: karsten_thomann at linfre.de (Karsten Thomann) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:51:43 +0200 Subject: The Cidr Report In-Reply-To: <6294684.6042.1405188673425.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <6294684.6042.1405188673425.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <1423012.sXdegLF73h@linne> I've asked Geoff Huston to check, but no answer until now... Am Samstag, 12. Juli 2014, 14:11:13 schrieb Jay Ashworth: > Well, probably 512k, but... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> > > To: cidr-report at potaroo.net > > Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org> > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 6:07:54 PM > > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report > > Does the CIDR report have a 510K prefix limit and crashed or > > something? > > > > :) > > > > -- > > TTFN, > > patrick > > > > On Jul 11, 2014, at 18:00 , cidr-report at potaroo.net wrote: > > > This report has been generated at Fri Jul 11 21:10:32 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this > > > report. > > > > > > Recent Table History > > > > > > Date Prefixes CIDR Agg > > > 04-07-14 507546 284271 > > > 05-07-14 508097 284317 > > > 06-07-14 508095 284519 > > > 07-07-14 508243 284914 > > > 08-07-14 508764 284695 > > > 09-07-14 508685 284695 > > > 10-07-14 0 284695 > > > 11-07-14 0 284695 > > > > > > AS Summary > > > > > > 0 Number of ASes in routing system > > > 0 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix > > > > > > 3792 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS > > > > > > AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > > > > > 0 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) > > > > > > ÖØÿÿÿ : NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > > > > > 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'). > > > > > > --- 11Jul14 --- > > > ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description > > > > > > Table 508685 284695 223990 44.0% All ASes > > > > > > AS28573 3792 139 3653 96.3% NET Serviços de Comunicação > > > > > > S.A.,BR > > > > > > AS6389 2951 80 2871 97.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - > > > > > > BellSouth.net Inc.,US > > > > > > AS17974 2789 186 2603 93.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT > > > > > > Telekomunikasi > > > Indonesia,ID > > > > > > AS22773 2664 191 2473 92.8% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - > > > > > > Cox Communications > > > Inc.,US > > > > > > AS7029 2565 435 2130 83.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream > > > > > > Communications Inc,US > > > > > > AS4766 2969 933 2036 68.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR > > > AS18881 2071 41 2030 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR > > > AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath > > > > > > Corporation,US > > > > > > AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR > > > AS7545 2322 996 1326 57.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom > > > > > > Limited,AU > > > > > > AS10620 2901 1583 1318 45.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO > > > AS4755 1866 591 1275 68.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA > > > > > > Communications > > > formerly VSNL > > > is Leading ISP,IN > > > > > > AS4323 1654 433 1221 73.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, > > > > > > inc.,US > > > > > > AS7552 1269 166 1103 86.9% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel > > > > > > Corporation,VN > > > > > > AS36998 1114 37 1077 96.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD > > > AS6983 1381 314 1067 77.3% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US > > > AS22561 1302 241 1061 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet > > > > > > Holdings, Inc.,US > > > > > > AS6147 1020 145 875 85.8% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE > > > AS4788 1027 156 871 84.8% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet > > > > > > Service Provider,MY > > > > > > AS24560 1149 332 817 71.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti > > > > > > Airtel Ltd., Telemedia > > > Services,IN > > > > > > AS7738 979 170 809 82.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR > > > AS4808 1216 408 808 66.4% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP > > > > > > network China169 > > > Beijing > > > Province Network,CN > > > > > > AS9829 1592 825 767 48.2% BSNL-NIB National Internet > > > > > > Backbone,IN > > > > > > AS11492 1247 490 757 60.7% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US > > > AS18101 942 186 756 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN > > > > > > Reliance > > > Communications > > > Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN > > > > > > AS8151 1451 698 753 51.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX > > > AS26615 863 128 735 85.2% Tim Celular S.A.,BR > > > AS855 774 58 716 92.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant > > > > > > Regional > > > Communications, > > > Inc.,CA From deleskie at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 21:15:57 2014 From: deleskie at gmail.com (deleskie at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:15:57 -0300 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> I've only been 1/2 paying attention, did I miss the <sarcasm> tag are are people really looking for those answers. -jim Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.   Original Message   From: Miles Fidelman Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:11 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Joly MacFie wrote: > Now we're >> so far off in the weeds, I can't even >> see where we started from. ^_^;; >> > > > What I'd like to know is > > 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. > 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and > 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation > 4) by regulation? > > Ditto. These questions really get to the nub of the current issues! Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From bzs at world.std.com Sat Jul 12 22:19:32 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:32 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > > And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" > > (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell > > access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up > > services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. > > yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite > well-known history? > > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > shell != internet. You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you were "on the internet"? The shell machines were connected to the internet. You could FTP, email, telnet, etc etc etc. Back in 1989 that was "on the internet". Heck, in 2014 it means on the internet. Right this minute I'm in a shell on a Linux machine connected to the internet and I'm pretty sure I have access to the internet. Consider the difference if you unplug that shell machine from the internet. Internet Service Provider. You got internet services. What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 12 22:19:56 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:56 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> Personally, I'm not being sarcastic at all. Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. But.. there's rulemaking going on at the FCC - driven by all the talk about "network neutrality" and "Internet Fast Lanes" -- that is likely to have real impacts on all of us. Most of what passes for "discussion" is posturing by various big players, interest groups, and pundits. (To an earlier comment - Verizon is not a small ISP; but neither is Netflix a small business.) These are real questions, that merit serious examination - not to mention serious input to the current FCC rulemaking from knowledgeable folks. Just one man's opinion, of course. Miles Fidelman deleskie at gmail.com wrote: > I've only been 1/2 paying attention, did I miss the <sarcasm> tag are are people really looking for those answers. > > -jim > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > Original Message > From: Miles Fidelman > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:11 PM > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix > > Joly MacFie wrote: >> Now we're >>> so far off in the weeds, I can't even >>> see where we started from. ^_^;; >>> >> >> What I'd like to know is >> >> 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. >> 2 )are there, should there, be different peering standards for each, and >> 3) if so some kind of functional if not structural separation >> 4) by regulation? >> >> > Ditto. These questions really get to the nub of the current issues! > > Miles Fidelman > > > > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From rdrake at direcpath.com Sat Jul 12 22:19:59 2014 From: rdrake at direcpath.com (Robert Drake) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:59 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=oFVOm8TQ9P=GPhWqy2WmeYuoeq08rmqxtxg_dSb=MW6A@mail.gmail.com> <61DC6BC4ABA10E4489D4A73EBABAC18B0237F334@EX01.swan.local> <5151a5ca906677bcaa8a26f297796f2b@mail.gmail.com> <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <53C1B48F.405@direcpath.com> On 7/11/2014 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world > country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to > go out there and fix it? > > One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and by > this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes. > > Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used > to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream > about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," > we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty > dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon > should be paying to improve service out to Netflix. > If you're a competitor to the monopoly then you don't get access to those funds. It sucks for you, but that's just how it works. The county/state government has determined that they need to pay someone to make their network better in that region. They chose to pay the monopoly (whoever that is) and it wasn't you. It's the monopolies job to ensure good connectivity to Netflix. Oh, the monopoly is Comcast and they have a Netflix caching box but you don't? That is the cost of doing business in a rural market. You've got a few choices. Build out a fiber backbone to larger or more diverse markets, buy more transit, or go out of business. I service customers in small markets. Frequently they've got underpowered circuits because the incumbent won't sell MetroE or charges astronomical amounts for everything. If those were my only customers I'm not sure what I would do because I don't like their networks. I want to upgrade them but I'm being held back by various things. I've had situations where <Monopoly> entered a building at my expense to provide me fiber service so I could upgrade the users speed, then use that new fiber to undercut me on prices and take all the customers. People say the exclusive agreements for multi-dwelling units were bad for the little guy, but the truth is that the little guy could use exclusive agreements to allow the community to collective bargain for better internet. Now that those are gone, the competition is who can bribe the property manager more in pay-per-home connect fees. > Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for > the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it > shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many > negative side-effects result. > No, it isn't. It's about monopolies telling a large company that isn't a monopoly that they need to pay them money to stay in business. > Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be > recognized as being mostly posturing for position. > > Miles Fidelman > From bzs at world.std.com Sat Jul 12 22:26:13 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:26:13 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <21441.46597.494959.81788@world.std.com> What is generally claimed is that I was the first to put the general public on the internet. Unix shell account, $20, connected machine, have at it. I got enough crap at the time for doing this that it must have been significant! ``Wot??? You can't put the GENERAL PUBLIC on the internet? What are you CRAZY??? You're illegally reselling federal property!!! (etc)'' The leap was that it was around $20 to ANYONE with a modem and a terminal (yes we had customers who actually used VT100s) or PC rather than thousands per month for a 9.6KB or 56KB leased line, router, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World.std.com On July 12, 2014 at 12:18 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > >> And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" > >> (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell > >> access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up > >> services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. > > yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite > > well-known history? > > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > > shell != internet. > > btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected > to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free > stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs > commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant > achievement. > > randy -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From bzs at world.std.com Sat Jul 12 22:29:19 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:29:19 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <FD92D9E5-4CFA-4981-A229-EE44F37BE927@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetingh! ouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2r41r2rkk.wl%randy@psg.com> <FD92D9E5-4CFA-4981-A229-EE44F37BE927@delong.com> Message-ID: <21441.46783.886483.707626@world.std.com> On July 11, 2014 at 22:31 owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > Not to take away from Barry, but around that same time, some of us left coasts were also helping to build Netcom as a viable commercial entity providing shell and later PPP and dedicated line access (DS0, T1). That was several months later, Rieger et al were well aware of The World, and Panix for that matter which came after World but before Netcom. They were springing up, yes, but first is first, vague handwaves of "around that same time" is irrelevant. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From bzs at world.std.com Sat Jul 12 22:43:35 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:43:35 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C11917.2070600@meetinghouse.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C11917.2070600@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <21441.47639.938707.198431@world.std.com> On July 12, 2014 at 07:16 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) wrote: > umm what history am I re-writing? > http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ - is as good a source as > any for Internet history, which says this under 1990 > "The World comes on-line (world.std.com), becoming the first commercial > provider of Internet dial-up access says" > ok - one can quibble 1989 (what Barry states on World's home page) > > PSInet was very late 1989, so there was that, I believe UUnet was 1990 I have ads and price schedules from October 1989 for public access internet. I could probably even dig up billing data from October or November. We actually started by offering shell and uucp access in August 1989 and then became a UUNET POP which put us directly on the internet in October. There was a T1 in our offices which back then was a pretty big deal! It was shared with other UUNET customers. We already had hundreds of customers using email etc when we became 192.74.137.*. UUNET and PSI internet wholesale were nearly simultaneous, I don't know the exact dates but early summer 1989 for internet sales. UUNET was already in the uucp biz for a year or two before that, we were a UUNET uucp customer when we started (and some other nodes like Encore, BU, etc.) Another reference is RFC2235 (I don't know why they used 1990 but it was written in 1997 and by then it didn't seem worth correcting) but there are a bunch of articles, I have most of them linked on my home page, http://www.TheWorld.com/~bzs > What I did forget was NEARnet - which embarrasses me, since I was at BBN > at the time. But, at first, NEARnet limited access to the NSFnet > backbone to it's non-commercial customers (at least that was the policy > - I'm not sure that filtering was ever really turned on in the > gateways). I don't recall whether CSnet had any commercial members. Apple was a CSNET 56k customer. > > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > > shell != internet. > > > > well now we get to rehash to very old definitional distinction between > "Internet Access Provider" and "Internet Service Provider" > > and yes, if a service provider takes money, to provide access to the > Internet in some way, shape, manner, or form, yes - that's providing > Internet "access" or "service" - and as soon as dial-up included PPP, > then that's a non-issue > > btw, not do denigrate what barry did. a commercial unix bbs connected > > to the real internet was significant. the left coasties were doing free > > stuff, the well, community memory, ... and barry created a viable bbs > > commercial service which still survives (i presume). a significant > > achievement. > > The other service Barry provided was pushing the whole issue of > commercial access to the backbone. That was kind of epic. I agree, that's the real point. As I said, what I did caused a furor. > And yes, they're still going strong. I still maintain an account - it's > my backup for the rare case that I need a separate site for diagnosing > issues with our cluster. > > Cheers, > > Miles > > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From LarrySheldon at cox.net Sat Jul 12 23:17:28 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:17:28 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <RaM31o01h1cZc5601aM5lY> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <RaM31o01h1cZc5601aM5lY> Message-ID: <53C1C208.8020401@cox.net> On 7/12/2014 5:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > > > And, for the record, it's pretty widely acknowledge that "The World" > > > (Barry Shein) was the world's first commercial ISP - offering shell > > > access in 1989, and at some point started offering PPP dial-up > > > services. As I recall, they were a UUnet POP. > > > > yep. and uunet and psi were hallucinations. can we please not rewrite > > well-known history? > > > > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > > shell != internet. > > You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a > machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you > were "on the internet"? > > The shell machines were connected to the internet. You could FTP, > email, telnet, etc etc etc. > > Back in 1989 that was "on the internet". > > Heck, in 2014 it means on the internet. > > Right this minute I'm in a shell on a Linux machine connected to the > internet and I'm pretty sure I have access to the internet. > > Consider the difference if you unplug that shell machine from the > internet. > > Internet Service Provider. You got internet services. > > What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared > address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet? This must be the silliest recurring thread-topic on NANOG since the "Spam is NOT an Operational issue" (or "DDOSes are not [ditto]") days. For the Subject: line -- when my provider stops providing what I want at a price I want to pay, I'll start looking for another one and as an end user I am not remotely interested in the nasties they have to through to GET what I want delivered. For the current thread position -- At this precise moment I am using Thunderbird (a messaging client with shell aspirations) under Windows XP (a shell with OS pretensions) talking to the network I developed, installed, pay for and maintain (could be called my ISP and separately my wife's ISP, and the ISP for invited and uninvited guests--could be but won't be because it conveys no useful information to anybody). That network is connected to a company's cable, which company is my ISP, my POTSP, and my TVP. Who and what they connect to to get th4e stuff I want delivered is only of academic interest. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From randy at psg.com Sun Jul 13 00:30:57 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:30:57 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> > Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on doughnut, not the hole. randy From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Jul 13 01:28:54 2014 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:28:54 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21441.47639.938707.198431@world.std.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C11917.2070600@meetinghouse.net> <21441.47639.938707.198431@world.std.com> Message-ID: <53C1E0D6.50905@dcrocker.net> On 7/12/2014 3:43 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > I don't recall whether CSnet had any commercial members. > > Apple was a CSNET 56k customer. As I recall, Schlumberger (http://www.slb.com/, a research site of theirs on the west coast) was one of the earliest CSNet member. So was HP. I put Schlumberger online circa 1981 or 1982. I believe they were among the first 5-10 sites I brought up. At that stage, it was only email relaying, of course. Packet services were later. Also, although CSNet started with NSF money, it was required to become self-funded within 5 years. Albeit on a non-profit financial model, I'd claim that that made it, essentially, a commercial access service. If one allows 'commercial' ISP to cover independent operations that happened not to have a profit-oriented motive, I suspect the first service to quality would be The Little Garden, operated as a direct consortium, rather than having third-party operations, as CSNet did. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From randy at psg.com Sun Jul 13 01:34:14 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:34:14 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <m24mym2ga1.wl%randy@psg.com> >> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. > no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. > but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. to be clearer. by count, the vast majority of peering is done by small ops informally. this represents a small fraction of the traffic. you don't see the peering agreements because there are no formal ones. and i guess it looks chaotic from the outside. it looks pretty normal from the inside. e.g., i have a research rack connected to the six, tell most folk there that i have neither eyeballs nor eye candy, but peer informally with folk such as r&e networks where i need to move data. oh, and the rack peers informally with my $dayjob, which might be the only informal peering which $dayjob does. makes sense from the inside, looks strange from the outside. you have to know my business model for it to make sense. the big kids peer very formally, which represents the majority of the traffic, and often does not happen at exchanges. like many bi-lateral business to business deals in the commercial world, the details are confidential. to you, it may look like the wild west. to the players, it's just business. randy From nanog at jima.us Sun Jul 13 01:36:14 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:36:14 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <62677.1405179193@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <62677.1405179193@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <53C1E28E.7050105@jima.us> On 2014-07-12 09:33, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700, Matthew Petach said: >> ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good >> it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making >> is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate >> entity from your upstream provider from the network >> perspective. > > If there's a problem, you're welcome to insist on calling > his upstream's NOC and listen to them say that address is > properly SWIP'ed to a customer until they're blue in the face > because you claim the customer doesn't exist. Except when, as in the original example, it's not. Jima From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Jul 13 02:25:01 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:25:01 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> Randy Bush wrote: >> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. > no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. > but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. > > what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business > war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want > to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are > just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on > doughnut, not the hole. > > Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me. Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Jul 13 02:27:11 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:27:11 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m24mym2ga1.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <m24mym2ga1.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53C1EE7F.2090602@meetinghouse.net> Randy Bush wrote: >>> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. >> no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. >> but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. > to be clearer. > > by count, the vast majority of peering is done by small ops informally. > this represents a small fraction of the traffic. you don't see the > peering agreements because there are no formal ones. and i guess it > looks chaotic from the outside. it looks pretty normal from the inside. > > e.g., i have a research rack connected to the six, tell most folk there > that i have neither eyeballs nor eye candy, but peer informally with > folk such as r&e networks where i need to move data. oh, and the rack > peers informally with my $dayjob, which might be the only informal > peering which $dayjob does. makes sense from the inside, looks strange > from the outside. you have to know my business model for it to make > sense. > > the big kids peer very formally, which represents the majority of the > traffic, and often does not happen at exchanges. like many bi-lateral > business to business deals in the commercial world, the details are > confidential. to you, it may look like the wild west. to the players, > it's just business. Exactly - all of this is informal, unregulated, done on a deal-by-deal basis - and the big guys fight things out with big guns. How is this not the wild west? Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From randy at psg.com Sun Jul 13 02:42:20 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:42:20 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> >>> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. >> no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. >> but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. >> >> what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business >> war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want >> to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are >> just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on >> doughnut, not the hole. > > Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that > Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or > some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys > fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the > Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me. ahhh. so not government regulated == wild west got it randy From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Jul 13 02:50:03 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:50:03 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> Randy Bush wrote: >>>> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. >>> no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. >>> but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. >>> >>> what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business >>> war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want >>> to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are >>> just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on >>> doughnut, not the hole. >> Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that >> Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or >> some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys >> fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the >> Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me. > ahhh. so > > not government regulated == wild west > > got it > > randy lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From nanog at brettglass.com Sun Jul 13 00:22:24 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (nanog at brettglass.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:22:24 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Message-ID: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> This is Brett Glass; I have been alerted to some of the responses to my message (which was cross-posted by a third party) and have temporarily joined the list to chime in. The following is my response to his message, edited slightly to include some new information. Dave Temkin wrote: >First and foremost, we built our CDN, Open Connect, "Open Connect" is not, in fact, a CDN. Nor is it "peering." It is merely a set of policies for direct connection to ISPs, and for placing servers in ISPs' facilities, that is as favorable as possible in every way to Netflix. It costs Netflix as little as possible and the ISP as much as possible. >with the intention to >deploy it as widely as possible in order to save ISPs who are delivering >our traffic money It does not, in fact, appear to save ISPs money. Note that Comcast asked for, and was given, additional payments even after it did all of the things that are part of Netflix' "Open Connect" program. Netflix, exercising inappropriate market power, has not offered smaller ISPs such as my own the same amount per customer. In fact, it has offered us no money at all -- even though our costs per Netflix customer are higher. Netflix thus discriminates against and threatens smaller ISPs, and by doing so, harms broadband competition. >and improve our mutual customer experience. This goes for >ISPs large and small, domestic and international, big endian and little >endian. We've never demanded payment from an ISP nor have we ever charged >for an Open Connect Appliance. The power and bandwidth consumed by an "Open Connect Appliance" (which is really just a hosted Netflix server) are a substantial expense for any ISP. Especially because the server is not a cache; it is stocked with content whether it is used or not and therefore wastes bandwidth on content and formats that will never be used even once. >When we first launched almost three years ago, we set a lower boundary for >receiving a Netflix Open Connect Appliance (which are always free) at >5Gbps. Since then we've softened that limit to 3.5Gbps due to efficiencies >of how we pre-load our appliances (more on that below). Most small ISPs (the average in the US, in fact) have 1,000 to 2,000 accounts. If every one of those streams at 1 Mbps at the same time, which is highly unlikely, this still does not reach 3.5 Gbps. Therefore, most ISPs are excluded simply by this requirement if not by others (such as the requirement that the ISP alone pay for a dedicated connection to one of Netflix' relatively few "peering points"). >We explicitly call our "cache" an Appliance because it's not a demand >driven transparent or flow-through cache like the Akamai or Google caches. >We do this because we know what's going to be popular the next day or even >week and push a manifest to the Appliance to tell it what to download >(usually in the middle of the night, but this is configurable by the ISP). What Netflix does not say here is that (a) it can only somewhat predict what will be in demand or go "viral;" (b) it wastes bandwidth by sending multiple copies of each video to its server in different formats, rather than transcoding locally or saving bandwidth on lesser used formats via caching; and (c) its server consumes large amounts of energy and bandwidth. A cache can be much more efficient and can be owned and managed by the ISP. >The benefit of this architecture is that a single Appliance can get 70+% >offload on a network, and three appliances clustered together can get 90+% >offload, while consuming approximately 500 watts of power, using 4U of rack >space, and serving 14Gbps per appliance. To put this in perspective: LARIAT builds its own caches which consume as little as 20 watts and can saturate a 10 Gbps Ethernet port. The Netflix servers are large, bloated power hogs compared to a well designed cache. >The downside of this architecture >is that it requires significant bandwidth to fill; in some ISPs cases >significantly more than they consume at peak viewing time. This is why our >solution may not work well for some small ISPs and we instead suggest >peering, which has 100% offload. Because it requires expensive bandwidth that's dedicated solely to Netflix, "peering" (as Netflix calls it; it's really just a dedicated link) has 0%, not 100%, offload. The ISP is paying for all of the bandwidth, and it cannot be used for anything else. >We've put a lot of effort into localizing our peering infrastructure >worldwide. As you can see from this map (sorry for the image), we're in 49 >locations around the world with the significant bulk of them in the US >(blue pins = 1 location, red pins = >1 location in a metro) - more detailed >version at <http://goo.gl/eDHpHU>http://goo.gl/eDHpHU and in our PeeringDB record ( ><http://as2906.peeringdb.com>http://as2906.peeringdb.com) : Our ISP connects to the Internet in Cheyenne, Wyoming (a major Internet "crossroads;" it's where I-80 meets I-25) and Denver, Colorado (which is, if anyplace can make the claim, the "center" of the entire Internet). Netflix' small and relatively sparse network of "peering" points does not include either of those locations. (I've noted, just today, that they have only recently listed a presence at a private data center outside of Denver in Englewood, Colorado -- not one of the major Denver exchanges, such as 1850 Pearl, to which we're already connected at great expense.) To get to it, we would have to spend several thousand dollars per month on an expensive connection, with no reimbursement of this expense from Netflix. If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) pay them equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher costs per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than receiving nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes streaming more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without caching is by far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering "fat" content to the consumer. --Brett Glass From randy at psg.com Sun Jul 13 03:35:35 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:35:35 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> >> ahhh. so >> not government regulated == wild west > lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation. and, if we are really lucky, maybe geoff will use his deep knowledge of history beyond the internet to tell us the real story of the so called wild west, which was likely more organized than one would think. randy From LarrySheldon at cox.net Sun Jul 13 03:57:40 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:57:40 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <Rej91o00u1cZc5601ejBql> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <Rej91o00u1cZc5601ejBql> Message-ID: <53C203B4.5080608@cox.net> On 7/12/2014 9:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > ahhh. so > > not government regulated == wild west More like "not civilized == wild west. Although as a native Westerner, I thing that is still an unfair slur. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From sjt5atra at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 05:39:21 2014 From: sjt5atra at gmail.com (Steven Tardy) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 01:39:21 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> Brett, You've previously stated: https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-457.htm "$20 per mbps per month" "1.25 gigabits of bandwidth coming in" Math: $20/mb/month * 1250mb = $25,000month If netflix is 1/3 of bandwidth... saving 1/3 of $25,000 -=> $8,000/month. (OK, Keep 100mbps for Netflix to pre-populate, 100mbps is 30TB/month) (Now I'm curious how many GB/month Netflix pre-populates, hmmm) How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? If it's a money thing, then you have a price... How much would Netflix have to pay you for you to consider? Can you elaborate on: It costs Netflix as little as possible and the ISP as much as possible. If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of entry. Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not? Steven Tardy, maybe I'm missing/overlooking something... On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 PM, <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > This is Brett Glass; I have been alerted to some of the responses to my > message (which was cross-posted by a third party) and have temporarily > joined the list to chime in. The following is my response to his message, > edited slightly to include some new information. > > Dave Temkin wrote: > > >First and foremost, we built our CDN, Open Connect, > > "Open Connect" is not, in fact, a CDN. Nor is it "peering." It is merely a > set > of policies for direct connection to ISPs, and for placing servers in ISPs' > facilities, that is as favorable as possible in every way to Netflix. It > costs > Netflix as little as possible and the ISP as much as possible. > > >with the intention to > >deploy it as widely as possible in order to save ISPs who are delivering > >our traffic money > > It does not, in fact, appear to save ISPs money. Note that Comcast > asked for, and was given, additional payments even after it did all of > the things that are part of Netflix' "Open Connect" program. Netflix, > exercising inappropriate market power, has not offered smaller ISPs such > as my own the same amount per customer. In fact, it has offered us no > money at all -- even though our costs per Netflix customer are higher. > Netflix thus discriminates against and threatens smaller ISPs, and by > doing so, harms broadband competition. > > >and improve our mutual customer experience. This goes for > >ISPs large and small, domestic and international, big endian and little > >endian. We've never demanded payment from an ISP nor have we ever charged > >for an Open Connect Appliance. > > The power and bandwidth consumed by an "Open Connect Appliance" (which is > really just a hosted Netflix server) are a substantial expense for any ISP. > Especially because the server is not a cache; it is stocked with content > whether it is used or not and therefore wastes bandwidth on content and > formats that will never be used even once. > > >When we first launched almost three years ago, we set a lower boundary for > >receiving a Netflix Open Connect Appliance (which are always free) at > >5Gbps. Since then we've softened that limit to 3.5Gbps due to efficiencies > >of how we pre-load our appliances (more on that below). > > Most small ISPs (the average in the US, in fact) have 1,000 to 2,000 > accounts. > If every one of those streams at 1 Mbps at the same time, which is highly > unlikely, this still does not reach 3.5 Gbps. Therefore, most ISPs are > excluded > simply by this requirement if not by others (such as the requirement that > the > ISP alone pay for a dedicated connection to one of Netflix' relatively few > "peering points"). > > >We explicitly call our "cache" an Appliance because it's not a demand > >driven transparent or flow-through cache like the Akamai or Google caches. > >We do this because we know what's going to be popular the next day or even > >week and push a manifest to the Appliance to tell it what to download > >(usually in the middle of the night, but this is configurable by the ISP). > > What Netflix does not say here is that (a) it can only somewhat predict > what > will be in demand or go "viral;" (b) it wastes bandwidth by sending > multiple > copies of each video to its server in different formats, rather than > transcoding locally or saving bandwidth on lesser used formats via caching; > and (c) its server consumes large amounts of energy and bandwidth. A cache > can be much more efficient and can be owned and managed by the ISP. > > >The benefit of this architecture is that a single Appliance can get 70+% > >offload on a network, and three appliances clustered together can get 90+% > >offload, while consuming approximately 500 watts of power, using 4U of > rack > >space, and serving 14Gbps per appliance. > > To put this in perspective: LARIAT builds its own caches which consume > as little as 20 watts and can saturate a 10 Gbps Ethernet port. The > Netflix servers are large, bloated power hogs compared to a well designed > cache. > > >The downside of this architecture > >is that it requires significant bandwidth to fill; in some ISPs cases > >significantly more than they consume at peak viewing time. This is why our > >solution may not work well for some small ISPs and we instead suggest > >peering, which has 100% offload. > > Because it requires expensive bandwidth that's dedicated solely to Netflix, > "peering" (as Netflix calls it; it's really just a dedicated link) has 0%, > not 100%, offload. The ISP is paying for all of the bandwidth, and it > cannot be used for anything else. > > >We've put a lot of effort into localizing our peering infrastructure > >worldwide. As you can see from this map (sorry for the image), we're in 49 > >locations around the world with the significant bulk of them in the US > >(blue pins = 1 location, red pins = >1 location in a metro) - more > detailed > >version at <http://goo.gl/eDHpHU>http://goo.gl/eDHpHU and in our > PeeringDB record ( > ><http://as2906.peeringdb.com>http://as2906.peeringdb.com) : > > Our ISP connects to the Internet in Cheyenne, Wyoming (a major Internet > "crossroads;" it's where I-80 meets I-25) and Denver, Colorado (which is, > if anyplace can make the claim, the "center" of the entire Internet). > > Netflix' small and relatively sparse network of "peering" points does not > include either of those locations. (I've noted, just today, that they have > only recently listed a presence at a private data center outside of Denver > in Englewood, Colorado -- not one of the major Denver exchanges, such as > 1850 Pearl, to which we're already connected at great expense.) To get to > it, > we would have to spend several thousand dollars per month on an expensive > connection, with no reimbursement of this expense from Netflix. > > If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) > pay them > equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher > costs > per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than > receiving > nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes > streaming > more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without > caching is by > far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering "fat" content to > the consumer. > > --Brett Glass > > From karsten_thomann at linfre.de Sun Jul 13 10:34:38 2014 From: karsten_thomann at linfre.de (Karsten Thomann) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:34:38 +0200 Subject: The Cidr Report In-Reply-To: <1423012.sXdegLF73h@linne> References: <6294684.6042.1405188673425.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <1423012.sXdegLF73h@linne> Message-ID: <2398720.ZnMaVtLse7@linne> FYI, Geoff fixed the problem Am Samstag, 12. Juli 2014, 22:51:43 schrieb Karsten Thomann: > I've asked Geoff Huston to check, but no answer until now... > > Am Samstag, 12. Juli 2014, 14:11:13 schrieb Jay Ashworth: > > Well, probably 512k, but... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> > > > To: cidr-report at potaroo.net > > > Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org> > > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 6:07:54 PM > > > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report > > > Does the CIDR report have a 510K prefix limit and crashed or > > > something? > > > > > > :) > > > > > > -- > > > TTFN, > > > patrick > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2014, at 18:00 , cidr-report at potaroo.net wrote: > > > > This report has been generated at Fri Jul 11 21:10:32 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this > > > > report. > > > > > > > > Recent Table History > > > > > > > > Date Prefixes CIDR Agg > > > > 04-07-14 507546 284271 > > > > 05-07-14 508097 284317 > > > > 06-07-14 508095 284519 > > > > 07-07-14 508243 284914 > > > > 08-07-14 508764 284695 > > > > 09-07-14 508685 284695 > > > > 10-07-14 0 284695 > > > > 11-07-14 0 284695 > > > > > > > > AS Summary > > > > > > > > 0 Number of ASes in routing system > > > > 0 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix > > > > > > > > 3792 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS > > > > > > > > AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > > > > > > > 0 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) > > > > > > > > ÖØÿÿÿ : NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR > > > > > > > > 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'). > > > > > > > > --- 11Jul14 --- > > > > ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description > > > > > > > > Table 508685 284695 223990 44.0% All ASes > > > > > > > > AS28573 3792 139 3653 96.3% NET Serviços de Comunicação > > > > > > > > S.A.,BR > > > > > > > > AS6389 2951 80 2871 97.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - > > > > > > > > BellSouth.net Inc.,US > > > > > > > > AS17974 2789 186 2603 93.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT > > > > > > > > Telekomunikasi > > > > Indonesia,ID > > > > > > > > AS22773 2664 191 2473 92.8% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - > > > > > > > > Cox Communications > > > > Inc.,US > > > > > > > > AS7029 2565 435 2130 83.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream > > > > > > > > Communications Inc,US > > > > > > > > AS4766 2969 933 2036 68.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR > > > > AS18881 2071 41 2030 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR > > > > AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath > > > > > > > > Corporation,US > > > > > > > > AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR > > > > AS7545 2322 996 1326 57.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom > > > > > > > > Limited,AU > > > > > > > > AS10620 2901 1583 1318 45.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO > > > > AS4755 1866 591 1275 68.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA > > > > > > > > Communications > > > > formerly VSNL > > > > is Leading ISP,IN > > > > > > > > AS4323 1654 433 1221 73.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, > > > > > > > > inc.,US > > > > > > > > AS7552 1269 166 1103 86.9% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel > > > > > > > > Corporation,VN > > > > > > > > AS36998 1114 37 1077 96.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD > > > > AS6983 1381 314 1067 77.3% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US > > > > AS22561 1302 241 1061 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet > > > > > > > > Holdings, Inc.,US > > > > > > > > AS6147 1020 145 875 85.8% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE > > > > AS4788 1027 156 871 84.8% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet > > > > > > > > Service Provider,MY > > > > > > > > AS24560 1149 332 817 71.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti > > > > > > > > Airtel Ltd., Telemedia > > > > Services,IN > > > > > > > > AS7738 979 170 809 82.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR > > > > AS4808 1216 408 808 66.4% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP > > > > > > > > network China169 > > > > Beijing > > > > Province Network,CN > > > > > > > > AS9829 1592 825 767 48.2% BSNL-NIB National Internet > > > > > > > > Backbone,IN > > > > > > > > AS11492 1247 490 757 60.7% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US > > > > AS18101 942 186 756 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN > > > > > > > > Reliance > > > > Communications > > > > Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN > > > > > > > > AS8151 1451 698 753 51.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX > > > > AS26615 863 128 735 85.2% Tim Celular S.A.,BR > > > > AS855 774 58 716 92.5% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant > > > > From nick at foobar.org Sun Jul 13 10:58:06 2014 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:58:06 +0100 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C2663E.3030608@foobar.org> On 13/07/2014 01:22, nanog at brettglass.com wrote: > "Open Connect" is not, in fact, a CDN. Nor is it "peering." It is merely a set > of policies for direct connection to ISPs, and for placing servers in ISPs' > facilities, that is as favorable as possible in every way to Netflix. It costs > Netflix as little as possible and the ISP as much as possible. it's a local cache server and of course it costs Netflix as little as possible because they're a business not a charity. The access service provider gets better performance, gets to choose where in their network makes most sense to have the device installed, and gets to save on transit / long-hauling costs. The overall traffic figures aren't changed in any material way, so it's not obvious why you claim that "it costs [...] the ISP as much as possible", because it just doesn't. For local content cache services of this type, some service providers are large enough to be able to financially muscle the content providers into paying for hosting / local connectivity fees, etc. This is nearly always a function of whether that sort of a deal can be strong-armed or not. The reverse is also true: the content providers will nearly always decline to pay hosting and connectivity fees if they feel they can get away with it. Both situations are a reflection of the relative importance of each business to each other. Nick From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Jul 13 11:55:07 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:55:07 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> Randy Bush wrote: >>> ahhh. so >>> not government regulated == wild west >> lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west > at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, > usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation. yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other at one point, way back) > > and, if we are really lucky, maybe geoff will use his deep knowledge of > history beyond the internet to tell us the real story of the so called > wild west, which was likely more organized than one would think. really? can you say Cliven Bundy? :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Jul 13 13:05:04 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:05:04 -0400 Subject: OT: WIld West [was: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix] In-Reply-To: <53C203B4.5080608@cox.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <Rej91o00u1cZc5601ejBql> <53C203B4.5080608@cox.net> Message-ID: <53C28400.1090909@meetinghouse.net> Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 7/12/2014 9:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> ahhh. so >> >> not government regulated == wild west > > More like "not civilized == wild west. > > Although as a native Westerner, I thing that is still an unfair slur. > Well, ok, maybe not the old west, but some of the current shenanigans sure look like the early days of Las Vegas ("I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse"), and of LA Power and Light (can you say "Chinatown?" - not all fictional). Granted the mob guys in Las Vegas mostly originated in NY and Chicago. :-) And now I'll shut up. Cheers, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From aledm at qix.co.uk Sun Jul 13 14:45:38 2014 From: aledm at qix.co.uk (Aled Morris) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:45:38 +0100 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> On 13 July 2014 06:39, Steven Tardy <sjt5atra at gmail.com> wrote: > (OK, Keep 100mbps for Netflix to pre-populate, 100mbps is 30TB/month) > (Now I'm curious how many GB/month Netflix pre-populates, hmmm) > Shame Netflix can't fill their appliances using really cheap, bulk, one-way satellite bandwidth which is useless for most other Internet applications. Then their traffic wouldn't use any of your real, paid for, transit. Of course siting a dish would be another expense with hosting one of their boxes, but if it made the on-going costs go away... Aled From ulf at alameda.net Sun Jul 13 14:58:51 2014 From: ulf at alameda.net (Ulf Zimmermann) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:58:51 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAJUfXzdZQsnW2UTfmxjnwzKemdRz5K_9Jz9TsiGS-f+nmk1UNQ@mail.gmail.com> iBeam tried to do that. If only they had used something else than Windows Server and other Microsoft products to do the caching. On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Aled Morris <aledm at qix.co.uk> wrote: > On 13 July 2014 06:39, Steven Tardy <sjt5atra at gmail.com> wrote: > > > (OK, Keep 100mbps for Netflix to pre-populate, 100mbps is 30TB/month) > > (Now I'm curious how many GB/month Netflix pre-populates, hmmm) > > > > Shame Netflix can't fill their appliances using really cheap, bulk, one-way > satellite bandwidth which is useless for most other Internet applications. > Then their traffic wouldn't use any of your real, paid for, transit. > > Of course siting a dish would be another expense with hosting one of their > boxes, but if it made the on-going costs go away... > > Aled > -- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-396-1764 You can find my resume at: http://www.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jul 13 15:26:28 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:26:28 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400." <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <117273.1405265188@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said: > 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from? (For example, if we provide transit to a downstream, but only announce a route to one of our upstreams, and that one upstream limits the further redistribution of the route..) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140713/4a8f4cf5/attachment.pgp> From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jul 13 15:30:23 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:30:23 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:32 -0400." <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetingh! ouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> Message-ID: <117450.1405265423@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:32 -0400, Barry Shein said: > What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared > address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet? I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those poor souls who are double or triple NATTed is "on drugs".... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140713/dcb813fa/attachment.pgp> From nanog at brettglass.com Sun Jul 13 15:50:16 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (nanog at brettglass.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:50:16 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407131550.JAA09095@mail.lariat.net> Ironically, I did this with my Usenet news feed (which back then was the big bandwidth hog) 20 years ago. Mark Lottor set it up. I understand that someone has just been granted a dubious patent on the same technique, despite the well known prior art. --Brett Glass At 08:45 AM 7/13/2014, Aled Morris wrote: >On 13 July 2014 06:39, Steven Tardy ><<mailto:sjt5atra at gmail.com>sjt5atra at gmail.com> wrote: >(OK, Keep 100mbps for Netflix to pre-populate, 100mbps is 30TB/month) >(Now I'm curious how many GB/month Netflix pre-populates, hmmm) > > >Shame Netflix can't fill their appliances using really cheap, >bulk, one-way satellite bandwidth which is useless for most other >Internet applications.  Then their traffic wouldn't use any of >your real, paid for, transit. > >Of course siting a dish would be another expense with hosting one >of their boxes, but if it made the on-going costs go away... > >Aled From nanog at brettglass.com Sun Jul 13 16:09:24 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (nanog at brettglass.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:09:24 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote: >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its freight. >If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of entry. >Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not? Akamai refused to do so when we approached them. The Akamai rep was rather rude and dismissive about it; we were too small to be worthy of their attention. It's important to note that the growth of rural ISPs is limited by population. Even if we did not have rapacious cable and telephone monopolies to compete with, our size is naturally limited by the number of possible customers. Each of those customers is every bit as valuable as an urban customer, but Netflix won't even give us the SAME amount per customer it gives Comcast, much less more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to allow caching. If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and lower costs due to caching at the ISP. --Brett Glass From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 13 16:20:05 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:20:05 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=ofrSUi+hvoaKw_LEh7KYzZ6vxMNs=Oc=M=UpDVz2JFNQ@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > >> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west. >>>>> >>>> no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them. >>>> but then, you are not an operator so no surprise. >>>> >>>> what you are seeing, and creating massive noise around, is a business >>>> war between the last mile cartel and the content they envy and want >>>> to supplant or at least bleed. transit, peering, caching, etc. are >>>> just business and technical tools being used in that war. keep eye on >>>> doughnut, not the hole. >>>> >>> Sure looks like a wild west range war to me. And let's not forget that >>> Netflix is not some tiny company anymore - 1/3 of Internet traffic or >>> some such, 46million members, $1billion Q1 income. Yeah - big guys >>> fighting, no established law or regulation (well, there was, but the >>> Supreme Court overturned it) - looks like a range war to me. >>> >> ahhh. so >> >> not government regulated == wild west >> >> got it >> >> randy >> > > lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west Wait, I thought that was Wall Street.... *ducks and runs for cover* Matt From lists at mtin.net Sun Jul 13 16:20:08 2014 From: lists at mtin.net (Justin Wilson) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:20:08 -0400 Subject: Equinix Sales Message-ID: <CFE829F8.7A377%lists@mtin.net> Sorry for the list traffic but I am having a tough time getting a sales person from Equinix to return my call. I have called two and they didn¹t seem to eager to even talk. I tried their form on the web-site and it¹s broken. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Justin -- Justin Wilson <j2sw at mtin.net> http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/blog> Managed Services ­ xISP Consulting ­ Data Center http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 13 16:22:38 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:22:38 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oD2CRWZd2by48=AhkzVLX=TEoE+-T9K1BpVY958UZ4og@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast at gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're > irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative > content market. > > True--otherwise, it would make more sense for Verizon to simply ask for some OpenConnect appliances to host in their network, and stop worrying about the entire peering policy question entirely. From cgucker at onesc.net Sun Jul 13 16:25:01 2014 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CALB2hAcoVRiVWX6DqQvKpM=Jgv20mJebuZo_VUNJLPNEF2Bfvw@mail.gmail.com> > If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, > will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. I call hogwash. ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, not threaten to cut off a portion of the Internet that "cost too much". A point that seems to be missed in this whole discussion. It was your choice to provide services in a rural area, not Netflix, Akamai or the like. If your business model is flawed, then don't expect somebody else to step in and fix it for you. Bandwidth is expensive to procure in a rural area, if you wish to change that, maybe it's time to find some investors and build your own network into an urban area where bandwidth, and interconnections in general, are more reasonably priced. Also, based on your logic within this whole thread, if I was a customer of yours, I'd expect you to pay me to use your services as you would be looking to get paid for my use of third party services. Also, I believe that what happened between Comcast and Netflix is temporary, much like what happened between Comcast and Level(3). charles From deleskie at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 16:27:46 2014 From: deleskie at gmail.com (jim deleskie) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:27:46 -0300 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAJL_ZMOA75NP=0JO-XknFRObe6ex9g99s=p7s=yPdyV4ssEbSA@mail.gmail.com> So it sounds like your customers want to use the service being sold, but you can't afford to service them due to the pricing they are being charged...Sounds like you need to raise prices. While I haven't worked for a rural wireless ISP, I have work for wired ISP's in the days of modems, Large transit networks and MSO's. If it costs you more to provide service then you charge for it, your a charity, not a business. -jim On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM, <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote: > > >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? > > Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix > would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's > collecting > from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us > customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the > non-Netflix > users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some > of its > freight. > > >If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of > entry. > >Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not? > > Akamai refused to do so when we approached them. The Akamai rep was rather > rude > and dismissive about it; we were too small to be worthy of their attention. > > It's important to note that the growth of rural ISPs is limited by > population. > Even if we did not have rapacious cable and telephone monopolies to compete > with, our size is naturally limited by the number of possible customers. > Each > of those customers is every bit as valuable as an urban customer, but > Netflix > won't even give us the SAME amount per customer it gives Comcast, much less > more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of > line > because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive > connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by > refusing to > allow caching. > > If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural > ones, > will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. > > Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come > along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily > destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance > and > lower costs due to caching at the ISP. > > --Brett Glass > > From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 13 16:53:53 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:53:53 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:09 AM, <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote: > > >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? > > Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. I know I'm just a dumb troll, but don't you have the same bandwidth demands already from your users pulling down netflix content today? If your users don't use netflix, then this is a moot point, and we can end the discussion now. If your users *do* use netflix currently, then you already have this bandwidth demand on your network, and finding ways to reduce or offload it would be an improvement. > And Netflix > would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's > collecting > from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us > customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the > non-Netflix > users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some > of its > freight. > Why not follow a model that other networks use (if you've ever bought transit in Asia, you've no doubt come across this -- you get a price of $x/mbps for transit; but if you're exchanging traffic with China ASes, that traffic is billed at $x*6/mbps.) Simply inform your users that due to the heavy demands netflix places on your infrastructure, you'll need to add a streaming surcharge onto their monthly bill to cover the costs, and then let the market solve your problem. Either users really do want netflix badly enough to pay the surchage and cover your costs, or they opt to find a different provider (in which case their heavy bandwidth usage is no longer impacting your network, so problem solved), or they decide they really didn't need netflix that badly (in which case the heavy bandwidth usage also goes away, and your problem is solved). > >If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of > entry. > >Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not? > > Akamai refused to do so when we approached them. The Akamai rep was rather > rude > and dismissive about it; we were too small to be worthy of their attention. > > It's important to note that the growth of rural ISPs is limited by > population. > Even if we did not have rapacious cable and telephone monopolies to compete > with, our size is naturally limited by the number of possible customers. > Each > of those customers is every bit as valuable as an urban customer, but > Netflix > won't even give us the SAME amount per customer it gives Comcast, much less > more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of > line > because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive > connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by > refusing to > allow caching. > See, this is why I think it was a bad move for any content player to bow to $cableco's demands; it's a slippery slope. Once you negotiate with one extortionist, the next blackmailer asks for even more money. The only answer is to never negotiate with...er, sorry, tuned into the wrong psychic channel there for a moment. > > If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural > ones, > will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. > And the rebellion will take what form, exactly? Cutting off netflix and other alternative content sources, leaving people with the predetermined slop fed to them over the airwaves and by their franchise-agreement-granted-monopoly cable company? Seems like exactly what the cable companies want. It's good they've managed to recruit an army of foot soldiers to lead the vanguard of the attack without even having to pay them--they can sit back and keep their hands relatively unbloodied as the battle unfolds. > > Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come > along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily > destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance > and > lower costs due to caching at the ISP. > That won't happen, because allowing content to be freely cached at the edge without control is tantamount to giving the content away without restriction; and no level of premium content is going to come with a license like that. Like it or not, no content creator is going to give up all rights to their content like that; it's not a (currently) viable business model. You might just as well ask why George Lucas continues to charge money for showings of his movies (oh, right--better make that Bob Iger now, sorry. ^_^;) Content creation is a business, and needs to make money to stay in business. Until that end of the equation changes, allowing content to be freely cached, replicated, and distributed just isn't going to happen, and to expect otherwise is hopelessly unrealistic. > --Brett Glass > > Matt From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Sun Jul 13 17:08:40 2014 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:08:40 -0700 Subject: Equinix Sales In-Reply-To: <CFE829F8.7A377%lists@mtin.net> References: <CFE829F8.7A377%lists@mtin.net> Message-ID: <c7c4065a7be707c2b401d154b74fee1e.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Well, I am sure they haven't gone out of business. They charge so much for cross connects that it's impossible for them to go under. Besides the power is still up on all our racks in their various facilities. Thank You Bob Evans CTO > Sorry for the list traffic but I am having a tough time getting a sales > person from Equinix to return my call. I have called two and they didn¹t > seem to eager to even talk. I tried their form on the web-site and it¹s > broken. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Justin > > -- > Justin Wilson <j2sw at mtin.net> > http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/blog> > Managed Services ­ xISP Consulting ­ Data Center > http://www.thebrotherswisp.com > Podcast about xISP topics > > > > From tlyons at ivenue.com Sun Jul 13 17:17:01 2014 From: tlyons at ivenue.com (Todd Lyons) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:17:01 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: >> >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? >> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. > > I know I'm just a dumb troll, but > don't you have the same bandwidth > demands already from your users > pulling down netflix content today? This is an interesting conversation to watch as a non-important, non-influential outsider. Brett's calculation is the cost of: (BW of preloading X new shows a week in multiple formats) is greater than (BW of Z % of his user base watching Y streams a week) It's not been clearly stated whether X is 100% of new shows, but I suspect it's more along the lines of mostly what Netflix expects to be popular. Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. Brett touched on this in the Security Now episode, but I don't think he was clear so I want to explore the realities of these options. IMHO two solutions exist that would make small people like Brett much happier with this Netflix box: 1) Make the box an on-demand cache: the first customer who watches a show causes the episode to stream/push_high_bw to the box, and from the box out to the customer. Any subsequent customer gets it directly from the box, even if the initial stream is still ongoing. Complications do arise if the second (or third) customer tries to move beyond the current location of the initial stream. 2) My suggestion is probably less popular because it requires a person with (maybe more than) a few minutes, but give the list of shows desired to be pre-pushed to the box to $ISP and give them a couple hours to uncheck certain things that they know or suspect their users won't watch, allowing them to reduce their bandwidth usage. And conversely, provide a checkbox of shows that the ISP wants to never be cached on the box. I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied too easily. However, if the Netflix box is what does all of the on-demand caching in #1, then it leaves the power in Netflix's hands, while not requiring the ISP to download multiple copies of shows that its users will never watch. A lot of this is dependent upon: 1) How many different copies of a single show are pushed to the box. Does that number vary per show. 2) How many shows are pushed/pre-pushed to the box per week. How frequently. ...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 13 17:43:41 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:43:41 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=rJO47k0Z6APU-OAD-gpyBQCrT7Sd063H-C5+HSMns9XQ@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Todd Lyons <tlyons at ivenue.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> > wrote: > >> >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? > >> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. > > > > I know I'm just a dumb troll, but > > don't you have the same bandwidth > > demands already from your users > > pulling down netflix content today? > > This is an interesting conversation to watch as a non-important, > non-influential outsider. > > Brett's calculation is the cost of: > > (BW of preloading X new shows a week in multiple formats) > is greater than > (BW of Z % of his user base watching Y streams a week) > > It's not been clearly stated whether X is 100% of new shows, but I > suspect it's more along the lines of mostly what Netflix expects to be > popular. > > Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of > shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's > customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is > large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. > Thank you for clarifying that; I thought what Brett was concerned about was traffic in the downstream direction, not traffic for populating the appliance. > > Brett touched on this in the Security Now episode, but I don't think > he was clear so I want to explore the realities of these options. > IMHO two solutions exist that would make small people like Brett much > happier with this Netflix box: > > 1) Make the box an on-demand cache: the first customer who watches a > show causes the episode to stream/push_high_bw to the box, and from > the box out to the customer. Any subsequent customer gets it directly > from the box, even if the initial stream is still ongoing. > Complications do arise if the second (or third) customer tries to move > beyond the current location of the initial stream. > > 2) My suggestion is probably less popular because it requires a person > with (maybe more than) a few minutes, but give the list of shows > desired to be pre-pushed to the box to $ISP and give them a couple > hours to uncheck certain things that they know or suspect their users > won't watch, allowing them to reduce their bandwidth usage. And > conversely, provide a checkbox of shows that the ISP wants to never be > cached on the box. > What if Netflix provided a third option; give the ISP a small UI through which they could set a "not-to-exceed" traffic rate on the appliance; the appliance would then seek to fill itself with content according to its priority-ranked listing by popularity, with the rsync (or whatever underlying technology it utilizes) set to rate limit itself to the value set by the ISP. It's already clear that netflix can handle streaming content that is *not* within the openconnect appliances, as that's what they do for the rest of their long tail content; this would simply shift where in the list of content the "long tail" began for users of this ISP. This would allow the ISP to gain the benefit of localized content sourcing for the historically highly popular content, while controlling the infeed volume to an acceptable rate for their network. Even setting a relatively small infeed rate of 100mb/sec would allow the appliance to populate 1TB/day of content, which would account for 30 DVD-sized titles/day--and I'm sure netflix compresses its data sources down considerably better than a 4GB DVD image file. I think that approach would help keep both sides happier; Netflix keeps control over the content in its appliance, and the smaller ISPs get the traffic offload benefit without having to sacrifice a huge volume of the upstream bandwidth to the appliance. > > I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content > freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied > too easily. However, if the Netflix box is what does all of the > on-demand caching in #1, then it leaves the power in Netflix's hands, > while not requiring the ISP to download multiple copies of shows that > its users will never watch. > > A lot of this is dependent upon: > 1) How many different copies of a single show are pushed to the box. > Does that number vary per show. > 2) How many shows are pushed/pre-pushed to the box per week. How > frequently. > > ...Todd > -- > The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. > If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, > send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine > > Yup--I think fundamentally the challenge here is how to give the ISP some level of control over the bandwidth consumption. Solving that, whether by changing to a pure on-demand model, or by giving a knob to change the infeed rate, would I think make netflix considerably more popular with the smaller sized ISPs. Thanks! Matt From mysidia at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 18:29:17 2014 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:29:17 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rJO47k0Z6APU-OAD-gpyBQCrT7Sd063H-C5+HSMns9XQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=rJO47k0Z6APU-OAD-gpyBQCrT7Sd063H-C5+HSMns9XQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAAAwwbUcrF7HRaOwp8CKOhfgn4M-bq103MYra=zc2XoGC6Gf4g@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Todd Lyons <tlyons at ivenue.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> >> wrote: >> Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of >> shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's >> customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is >> large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. However..... (1) There are other considerations besides bandwidth saved: there is customer experience improvement if latency and therefore load times decrease. (2) You or a cache box don't know which streams your customers will watch in advance. Although the cache units preload popular content, not necessarily the entire catalog. Your users are most likely watch during peak hours, which is the time at which more bandwidth is the most expensive... at most other times, additional bandwidth usage is $0, so it doesn't strictly matter, necessarily, if more total transfer is required using a cache box than not. (3) If you don't have at least a couple Gigabits of Netflix traffic, you are unlikely to consider undertaking the expense of the SLA requirements before you can run a box, electricity, space in the first place, if you even meet the traffic minimums required to get free cache boxes. And (4) The "pushing of shows to the units" occur during a configured fill window, which their guides say will be defined by the provider's network planning team in a manner and maximum bandwidth demand over that time suited to your traffic profile, so as to not increase the 95-th percentile traffic from your upstream. For example: the fill window can occur during the hours of the day when there is little interactive customer traffic. They recommend a 10 to 12 hour fill window with a maximum rate of 1.2 Gigabits. http://oc.nflxvideo.net/docs/OpenConnect-Deployment-Guide.pdf Therefore, in any of the cases where cache boxes have actually been implemented properly, they are still likely to be a net benefit for both provider and customers. > Thank you for clarifying that; I thought what > Brett was concerned about was traffic in > the downstream direction, not traffic for > populating the appliance. -- -JH From bzs at world.std.com Sun Jul 13 19:34:33 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:34:33 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <21442.57161.506252.52567@world.std.com> On July 13, 2014 at 11:42 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > > ahhh. so > > not government regulated == wild west > > got it Let's not forget that the big players in all this have cross-subsidized from huge, government-protected monopolies or very-small-N oligopolies in cable, phone services and wire plants, etc. To now suggest that non-governmental business processes would be superior to arbitrate interconnects etc seems, to me, highly disingenuous as a principled position. Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated sinecures. I'd argue it's not the wild west inasmuch as it's more like the old joke about three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. But the imagery of range wars is apt. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From nanog at brettglass.com Sun Jul 13 19:54:22 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (nanog at brettglass.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:54:22 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.g mail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407131954.NAA11092@mail.lariat.net> At 11:17 AM 7/13/2014, Todd Lyons wrote: >Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of >shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's >customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is >large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. Yes. Especially since Netflix insists upon sending multiple copies of each video -- not only in different formats but in different resolutions -- to the server. >I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content >freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied >too easily. The content could be copied just as easily from a Netflix server if it were stolen from the ISP's office. However, by far the most likely place for illicit copies to be made is at the client end, because it can be done in a private location and attract no attention at all. However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the solution is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the streams in encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate, secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to obtain usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an ISP-owned cache. Problem solved. --Brett Glass From bzs at world.std.com Sun Jul 13 19:54:52 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:54:52 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21442.58380.73167.87541@world.std.com> Just an observation: I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin fighting. In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, "could people please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!!" Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the images please be generated locally and downloaded "off hours" (whatever "off hours" meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. And games OMG games. I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in physics which is where that was coming from.) And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) On and on. Now it's video streaming. And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this "Internet of Things" idea, too many people conversing with their toaster-ovens. My comment has always been the same: There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into bread lines. I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how to bake more bread. This too shall pass. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From frnkblk at iname.com Sun Jul 13 20:56:10 2014 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk (iname.com)) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:56:10 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003a01cf9edc$e07cc220$a1764660$@iname.com> A third option is to use a transparent caching box, so it caches what's seen. At $20/Mbps I suspect all the popular vendors would find three year or less ROI. Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Todd Lyons Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:17 PM Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: >> >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? >> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. > > I know I'm just a dumb troll, but > don't you have the same bandwidth > demands already from your users > pulling down netflix content today? This is an interesting conversation to watch as a non-important, non-influential outsider. Brett's calculation is the cost of: (BW of preloading X new shows a week in multiple formats) is greater than (BW of Z % of his user base watching Y streams a week) It's not been clearly stated whether X is 100% of new shows, but I suspect it's more along the lines of mostly what Netflix expects to be popular. Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. Brett touched on this in the Security Now episode, but I don't think he was clear so I want to explore the realities of these options. IMHO two solutions exist that would make small people like Brett much happier with this Netflix box: 1) Make the box an on-demand cache: the first customer who watches a show causes the episode to stream/push_high_bw to the box, and from the box out to the customer. Any subsequent customer gets it directly from the box, even if the initial stream is still ongoing. Complications do arise if the second (or third) customer tries to move beyond the current location of the initial stream. 2) My suggestion is probably less popular because it requires a person with (maybe more than) a few minutes, but give the list of shows desired to be pre-pushed to the box to $ISP and give them a couple hours to uncheck certain things that they know or suspect their users won't watch, allowing them to reduce their bandwidth usage. And conversely, provide a checkbox of shows that the ISP wants to never be cached on the box. I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied too easily. However, if the Netflix box is what does all of the on-demand caching in #1, then it leaves the power in Netflix's hands, while not requiring the ISP to download multiple copies of shows that its users will never watch. A lot of this is dependent upon: 1) How many different copies of a single show are pushed to the box. Does that number vary per show. 2) How many shows are pushed/pre-pushed to the box per week. How frequently. ...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine From mehmet at akcin.net Sun Jul 13 21:10:27 2014 From: mehmet at akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:10:27 -0700 Subject: ESPN worldcup streaming traffic Message-ID: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> Hi I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very well be one of the biggest watched via Internet event of all the times. Mehmet From hslabbert at stargate.ca Sun Jul 13 21:28:08 2014 From: hslabbert at stargate.ca (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:28:08 -0700 Subject: ESPN worldcup streaming traffic In-Reply-To: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> References: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> Message-ID: <20140713212808.GB16353@stargate.ca> The Argentina semi-final on Thursday had us at about 300% of our regular daytime peaks; other preceding games were closer to about 200%. We don't have any residential connections, just business, so today's (weekend) game didn't really register much. In terms of other streamed events: The men's hockey final in the Winter Olympics beat this pretty soundly for our stats, at about 500% of regular daytime peaks...but then again, we have a Canadian market after all! The streaming in both cases was through CBC via Akamai, coming in over a combination of Akamai peering and caches. -- Hugo On Sun 2014-Jul-13 14:10:27 -0700, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote: >Hi > >I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very well be one of the biggest watched via Internet event of all the times. > >Mehmet From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 21:40:11 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:40:11 -0700 Subject: ESPN worldcup streaming traffic In-Reply-To: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> References: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSJKOoSBfNng6c_q553Sf3FMC8SQ5xRWEx0C6XiHEyCHg@mail.gmail.com> On Jul 13, 2014 2:12 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote: > > Hi > > I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very well be one of the biggest watched via Internet event of all the times. > > Mehmet http://www.akamai.com/worldcup Yes, the wold cup has been a huge event for access networks. From bedard.phil at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 22:15:48 2014 From: bedard.phil at gmail.com (Phil Bedard) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:15:48 -0400 Subject: ESPN worldcup streaming traffic In-Reply-To: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> References: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> Message-ID: <CFE87B69.9FB71%bedard.phil@gmail.com> MSO in the US, traffic from Akamai (who delivers the ESPN traffic) was up about 30% vs. last Sunday at the same time. Overall it was kind of negligible. It wasn't as high as it was for the USA vs. Germany match since that one was during the week and not after working hours. I imagine the majority of people just watched it on their TV and the Akamai stats for today would seem to indicate the same. I did stream the second half while sitting at Starbucks. Phil On 7/13/14, 5:10 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote: >Hi > >I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and >wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting >to see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This >very well be one of the biggest watched via Internet event of all the >times. > >Mehmet From nanog at brettglass.com Sun Jul 13 23:00:46 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:00:46 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Message-ID: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: >ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair, because we would be doing something special just for it -- something which costs money. If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. --Brett Glass From eyeronic.design at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 23:32:04 2014 From: eyeronic.design at gmail.com (Mike Hale) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 16:32:04 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAN3um4x=rJB5+CNWHGJTA-da26o3Kn7HyFHO=BJwWBvj+-B_mA@mail.gmail.com> Dude. Netflix doesn't want you to do help its service. Your customers want you to do that. On Jul 13, 2014 4:03 PM, "Brett Glass" <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: > > >ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to > >the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you > >look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, > > My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract > additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix > should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix > subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They > want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include > paying ransom to third parties. > > We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain > minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street > in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain > maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific > third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, > it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair, > because we would be doing something special just for it -- something > which costs money. > > If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear > us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have > no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly > considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that > IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of > bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- > actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their > resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. > This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement > to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast > that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. > > --Brett Glass > > From tom at ninjabadger.net Sun Jul 13 23:33:26 2014 From: tom at ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:33:26 +0100 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C31746.7010800@ninjabadger.net> On 14/07/14 00:00, Brett Glass wrote: > ISPs would sign on so fast that such a service could BURY Netflix in > short order. By the way, don't think you're not going to have to pay us for all for that dirt you're hurling... These entrepreneurs, digging up dirt and depositing it everywhere. Don't they know how much it costs us to keep the place clean?! Tom From nanog at brettglass.com Sun Jul 13 23:55:35 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:55:35 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C31746.7010800@ninjabadger.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <53C31746.7010800@ninjabadger.net> Message-ID: <201407132355.RAA12833@mail.lariat.net> At 05:33 PM 7/13/2014, Tom Hill wrote: >By the way, don't think you're not going to have to pay us for all >for that dirt you're hurling... Building new things often does involve digging up dirt. Unlike Netflix, we'd gladly pay anyone who participates in the digging. ;-) --Brett Glass From rubensk at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 00:02:39 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 21:02:39 -0300 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132355.RAA12833@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <53C31746.7010800@ninjabadger.net> <201407132355.RAA12833@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k31fJBoVms88cH=Jsk6E_+M+wuTGw3Qud7X8Xgqu5PDfg@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 05:33 PM 7/13/2014, Tom Hill wrote: > > By the way, don't think you're not going to have to pay us for all for >> that dirt you're hurling... >> > > Building new things often does involve digging up dirt. Unlike Netflix, > we'd gladly pay anyone who participates in the digging. ;-) > But before Netflix made a deal with Comcast, would you be making the same request ? Rubens From hslabbert at stargate.ca Mon Jul 14 00:06:02 2014 From: hslabbert at stargate.ca (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:06:02 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <20140714000602.GC16353@stargate.ca> >My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract >additional money from them so as to cover *expenses that Netflix >should be covering*. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix >subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They >want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include >paying ransom to third parties. (emphasis mine) I've gotta be frank here: I really don't understand the line of reasoning from an access network's perspective that says $CONTENT needs to pay $ACCESS to accept the bits that $ACCESS's users requested from $CONTENT. I might be missing nuances here, but I've not yet come across an argument that's convinced me of why this should be the case. Of course your customers don't want prices raised; that's a no-brainer, and similarly it's fair for Grandma that just checks her email and Facebook to not want to carry the infrastructure costs of someone who consumes more content. I think what Charles is driving at is that users don't care about whether you pull in content through 1850 Pearl Street, transit, direct peering, or whatever; if I as a customer am paying for a 50 mbps service, I want my 50 mbps service. That said, to your point of no performance/connectivity guarantees to/from third parties: experience seems to indicate that users understand that you're not responsible for ensuring Netflix can *push out* the content at a given rate. However, if Netflix is capable of delivering the bits to your doorstep (wherever that is), it becomes your problem to get those bits from your doorstep to the customer. If Netflix users (or users of any other bandwidth-hungry service) are sucking up more than "their fair share", which is generally to say that they're over your oversubscription ratio, and they are *also* over the minimum capacity that you're guaranteeing below, you're in the clear from a business standpoint as long as your remaining users still get their minimum. If other users are starting to get impacted so that they don't get their guaranteed minumum, that's a network management problem (i.e. how do I cap the "offending" traffic so that other users' still get their guaranteed rate?). I suspect you may have a hard time explaining to the Netflix users that, while you're dropping/delaying their traffic in that case, you're still delivering the promised service because they're still getting their minimum service to 1850 Pearl as they're traffic is coming in from somewhere else, but I digress... If those users are over the overscription ratio *but* still below their guaranteed minimum, that sucks for the provider, but it's still the provider's problem, and the math in the business plan was apparently wrong. Since not all users consume exactly the same amount of network resources, someone is *always* subsidizing someone else's service; the question is just "by how much?" If the value north of the oversubscription ratio is sufficiently large that it's becoming a problem, either the agreement with the user(s) needs to be adjusted ("I know we said x mbps, but we actually meant < x mbps"), which again sucks from a business standpoint but is the provider's problem to deal with, or capacity needs to be augmented to match. The agreement bump can be either global (which again is a difficult business maneuver) or targeted at the users sucking up the extra capacity (which is more palatable, though users still generally balk at tiered/usage pricing). None of these are really fun to deal with from the business side, but if $CONTENT is simply getting the bits to your edge as requested, I don't see in any way how they can be blamed for the unfortunate business situation in which $ACCESS finds himself. User asks for bits; $CONTENT gets the bits to $ACCESS's edge; $CONTENT's responsibility is done. You stated earlier: >"Open Connect" is not, in fact, a CDN. Nor is it "peering." It is merely a set >of policies for direct connection to ISPs, and for placing servers in ISPs' >facilities, that is as favorable as possible in every way to Netflix. That's news to me. We peer settlement-free with Netflix at the SIX, and they cover that in the OpenConnect umbrella term: "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network." -- https://www.netflix.com/openconnect Also: >Because it requires expensive bandwidth that's dedicated solely to Netflix, >"peering" (as Netflix calls it; it's really just a dedicated link) has 0%, >not 100%, offload. The ISP is paying for all of the bandwidth, and it >cannot be used for anything else. I don't see any requirements that this is a dedicated link; we peer with them over public peering fabric and exchange a bunch of other traffic over that link. Is there another requirement in OpenConnect peering that we've just not hit but you are subject to? OpenConnect has a range of options, from public peering to private interconnects to caching appliances; the intention, I gather, is to provide a range of options. Exchange a bit of traffic but not really all that much? Public peering. Starting to consume a bunch of traffic but don't want a cache appliance? Private interconnect. Exchange a bunch of traffic and prefer caching? Get a free appliance. Presumably if you're not peering with Netflix and you don't have an appliance, you're getting the traffic via transit. You're free to not do any of the above if you find your transit costs for Netflix traffic are lower than those options (or if you just don't like OpenConnect), but for a lot of people public/private peering or a caching appliance saves $$ and resources. >...(b) pay them equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs >have higher costs per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, >rather than receiving nothing); The Comcast and Verizon deals were made because those guys had leverage, not because it costs them more. "We should get paid because Comcast got paid" doesn't add up. On Sun 2014-Jul-13 17:00:46 -0600, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: >At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: > >>ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >>the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >>look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, > >My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract >additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix >should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix >subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They >want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include >paying ransom to third parties. > >We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain >minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street >in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain >maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific >third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, >it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair, >because we would be doing something special just for it -- something >which costs money. > >If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear >us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have >no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly >considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that >IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of >bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- >actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their >resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. >This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement >to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast >that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. > >--Brett Glass > -- Hugo From nanog at brettglass.com Mon Jul 14 00:33:58 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:33:58 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k31fJBoVms88cH=Jsk6E_+M+wuTGw3Qud7X8Xgqu5PDfg@mail.g mail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <53C31746.7010800@ninjabadger.net> <201407132355.RAA12833@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k31fJBoVms88cH=Jsk6E_+M+wuTGw3Qud7X8Xgqu5PDfg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407140034.SAA12994@mail.lariat.net> At 06:02 PM 7/13/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >But before Netflix made a deal with Comcast, would you be making >the same request ? Yes. I have an e-mail trail dating back to November of last year in which I attempted to discuss this with Netflix. They were intransigent. They didn't believe that the views of a small ISP from Wyoming were worth considering. --Brett From nanog at jima.us Mon Jul 14 01:32:52 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:32:52 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C33344.5090902@jima.us> On 2014-07-13 17:00, Brett Glass wrote: > We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain > minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street > in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain > maximum duty cycle. I confess I might be splitting hairs, but what Internet exchange exists at 1850 Pearl Street? The best I can ascertain is that it's a Level3 datacenter, which doesn't seem (to me) to be the same thing. It would appear that neither LARIAT nor Netflix has chosen to connect to the most prevalent (one might argue "only true") IXP in Colorado, so I'm honestly a bit puzzled as to a) your indignation and b) their decision. Jima From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 14 01:36:14 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:36:14 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407140034.SAA12994@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <53C31746.7010800@ninjabadger.net> <201407132355.RAA12833@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k31fJBoVms88cH=Jsk6E_+M+wuTGw3Qud7X8Xgqu5PDfg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <m261j02035.wl%randy@psg.com> >> But before Netflix made a deal with Comcast, would you be making >> the same request ? > Yes. I have an e-mail trail dating back to November of last year in > which I attempted to discuss this with Netflix. They were > intransigent. They didn't believe that the views of a small ISP from > Wyoming were worth considering. i am not sure that was rubens's question. and i suspect they were looking for the cash not the views. but that aside, when i started in a small area, i was aware of the consequent lack of leverage i would have, business deals are not based just on one party's needs. otoh, 25 years ago it was far easier to supply into a completely unfulfilled market. any measurements of what the cache hit ratios might be in a market such as yours? of course, even 10% is a win if you can get the cost of the cache close to zero. (but what's the financial win there for netflix?) <aside> but you have my sympathies. i doubt i would start a rural isp in the states today, insufficient leverage to get the facilities it would need and too vulnerable to cable and telco. i am also not buying into cattle here in tokyo. :) <aside^2> we are netflix consumers, and tunnel it to tokyo. for us, the content sucks, all mainstream, but japanese movie houses do not subtitle in english. when we were in the states, the dvd service had the long tail, and our tastes are out on that more obscure tail. my guess is that, for streaming, netflix is in a major tussle with the studios. i suspect there is a parallel to this overall discussion. randy From nanog at brettglass.com Mon Jul 14 01:59:29 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:59:29 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Message-ID: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> At 07:32 PM 7/13/2014, Jima wrote: >I confess I might be splitting hairs, but what Internet exchange >exists at 1850 Pearl Street? The best I can ascertain is that >it's a Level3 datacenter, which doesn't seem (to me) to be the same thing. It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building which I believe is owned by Level3. It also has huge amounts of fiber cross-connecting it to 910 15th Street, a block from the Denver Convention Center, so that a presence at one is essentially equivalent to a presence at the other. But Netflix does not have a presence at either one. --Brett Glass From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 02:08:12 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: nanog at brettglass.com > This is Brett Glass; I have been alerted to some of the responses to my > message (which was cross-posted by a third party) and have temporarily > joined the list to chime in. The following is my response to his > message, edited slightly to include some new information. Well, they were actually responses to *my* message, which made a fundamental point which you carefully don't address here at all, amongst what our British counterparts would probably term your whinging. :-) > If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; > (b) pay them > equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have > higher costs > per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than > receiving > nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that > makes streaming > more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without > caching is by > far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering "fat" content > to the consumer. Bandwidth is expensive. Given. You made the wrong gamble on how asymmetrical your customers connections would *really* be. But that doesn't make that traffic *not be* -- as your brothers in the telco arm would phrase it -- "at your customers' instance", rather than, as your arguments all assume, at Netflix's. About 80% of so of the responses I've seen here agree that's a reasonable view of the situation... so we'll for the moment assume that you didn't address it because you *can't* address it. Care to differ? Cheers, -- jra [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 14 02:12:13 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:12:13 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> > It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building > which I believe is owned by Level3. It also has huge amounts of > fiber cross-connecting it to 910 15th Street, a block from the > Denver Convention Center, so that a presence at one is essentially > equivalent to a presence at the other. how much traffic, how much is eyeball, and who has volunteered to give netflix cheap transit to stuff the ache? randy From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 02:17:33 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <117273.1405265188@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <23482295.6122.1405304253917.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said: > > > 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and.. > > And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from? > (For example, if we provide transit to a downstream, but only announce > a route to one of our upstreams, and that one upstream limits the > further redistribution of the route..) Really? This is a question? You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single uplink count here, yes. You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are other networks, including larger business networks that are or might become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have an ASN. I don't even make a living at this, and I didn't have a problem with this definition... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 02:21:22 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Oh, pants. Message-ID: <28078743.6124.1405304482784.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> I've apparently misread Brett Glass's initial post, thinking he was the Verizon rep who wrote the blog post I copied in here; it's become clear that he's not. My apologies for the framing of my reply to him on the list earlier. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From dave at temk.in Mon Jul 14 02:31:31 2014 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:31:31 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> We've never been asked to POP that location. If I can, I will, just as my team has POPed 15+ other locations this year alone. Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. He's sent dozens of harassing emails demanding payment and nothing else. I've offered to speak to him directly but he hasn't responded, so I have to imagine he's just here for the attention. -Dave On Sunday, July 13, 2014, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','randy at psg.com');>> wrote: > > It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building > > which I believe is owned by Level3. It also has huge amounts of > > fiber cross-connecting it to 910 15th Street, a block from the > > Denver Convention Center, so that a presence at one is essentially > > equivalent to a presence at the other. > > how much traffic, how much is eyeball, and who has volunteered to give > netflix cheap transit to stuff the ache? > > randy > From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 02:32:13 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <14277196.6128.1405305133162.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brett Glass" <nanog at brettglass.com> Note that I misunderstood you to be the Verizon blog poster I started this thread commenting on. My apology for that in a separate post, but here are some replies that amount to "you are standing on the same rock in the river they are". :-) > My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract > additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix > should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix > subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They > want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include > paying ransom to third parties. Characterizing it as "ransom" and "expenses Netflix should be covering" is, alas, largely in doubt, from the responses I've seen here; it's assuming facts not in evidence. > We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain > minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street > in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain > maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific > third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, > it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair, > because we would be doing something special just for it -- something > which costs money. It's not Netflix who expects you to deliver that quality. It's your customers. Who pay you for it. If they're not paying you enough, well... who set those prices? Netflix? > If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear > us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs > have no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly > considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that > IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of > bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- > actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their > resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. > This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement > to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast > that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. Alas, content providers probably would not. But good luck with that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 14 02:51:29 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:51:29 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> > We've never been asked to POP that location. what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be in coresite and defunct. there is some "any2" exchange claiming to be the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock. is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel? i am having a hard time finding it, web site, traffic, ts&cs, ... you know, like <https://www.seattleix.net/>, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which i am used. > Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. welcome to nanog. the list is a test of one's ability to find the substance amidst the flack, this oft-repeated discussion being notable. i wonder what we get if we pass the test. randy From nanog at jima.us Mon Jul 14 03:00:39 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 21:00:39 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <53C347D7.1020708@jima.us> On 2014-07-13 20:51, Randy Bush wrote: >> We've never been asked to POP that location. > > what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be > in coresite and defunct. there is some "any2" exchange claiming to be > the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock. > > is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and > not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel? i am having a hard > time finding it, web site, traffic, ts&cs, ... you know, like > <https://www.seattleix.net/>, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which > i am used. Randy, As best as I've been able to find: https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=254 https://www.peeringdb.com/private/facility_view.php?id=389 LARIAT is reportedly connected to: https://www.peeringdb.com/private/facility_view.php?id=1221 and Netflix appears to be in: https://www.peeringdb.com/private/facility_view.php?id=1875 Beyond that, I have no idea -- this is the 350-mile view. Jima From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 14 03:01:30 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:01:30 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CA+w5D_AS8yF=wZEiE7u9sW7armb9ZZr3MhBjtLQ5cwz5NaSH2w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA+w5D_AS8yF=wZEiE7u9sW7armb9ZZr3MhBjtLQ5cwz5NaSH2w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <m2vbr0zlrp.wl%randy@psg.com> > The RMIX is alive and well. cool. web site? traffic? members? From woody at pch.net Mon Jul 14 03:12:26 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:12:26 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <A08FE520-1A70-47CB-A1C4-9874D7FF6099@pch.net> (Yes, yes, I know, feeding the troll, etc.) On Jul 13, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > We guarantee each subscriber a certain minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street > in Denver… It’s a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building which I believe is owned by Level3. So, Brett, this begs the question, “Well known to whom?” Your implication is that it’s known to someone besides yourself. Most people recognize a definition of an exchange as a location at which three or more networks peer, and which has published policies allowing additional networks access on the same terms. Is that a definition that you understand and subscribe to? Or are you using some other definition that is not “well known?” If there’s a currently-operational exchange in Denver other than CoreSite (910 15th Street & 639 E. 18th Street), I and many other people would very much like to know about it. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140713/b395dc6f/attachment.pgp> From redhead at linux.redbird.com Mon Jul 14 03:18:44 2014 From: redhead at linux.redbird.com (Reid Fishler) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 23:18:44 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2vbr0zlrp.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CA+w5D_AS8yF=wZEiE7u9sW7armb9ZZr3MhBjtLQ5cwz5NaSH2w@mail.gmail.com> <m2vbr0zlrp.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <CA+w5D_B2O9NifLbOzLpHVHWDJV7gA65pfW+fzBZNzebY6xTeOA@mail.gmail.com> https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=254 is the correct exchange for the old RMIX. Reid On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > > The RMIX is alive and well. > > cool. web site? traffic? members? > > From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 14 03:53:38 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:53:38 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CA+w5D_B2O9NifLbOzLpHVHWDJV7gA65pfW+fzBZNzebY6xTeOA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA+w5D_AS8yF=wZEiE7u9sW7armb9ZZr3MhBjtLQ5cwz5NaSH2w@mail.gmail.com> <m2vbr0zlrp.wl%randy@psg.com> <CA+w5D_B2O9NifLbOzLpHVHWDJV7gA65pfW+fzBZNzebY6xTeOA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <m2tx6kzjct.wl%randy@psg.com> > https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=254 is the > correct exchange for the old RMIX. "CoreSite - Any2 Denver / Formerly RMIX" and 19 members. so a bit small, 17 members not counting the host. but some players with oomph, if they are real as opposed to some mpls hack. and swollowed by the never-heard-of-em any2 marketroids. could be worth david's time, but he's the judge. denver has always been a bit difficult. i once helped run an isp out of littleton. but we only had offices there, packets were all far away. hell to even get fiber there. i hope things have improved. randy From swmike at swm.pp.se Mon Jul 14 05:52:12 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:52:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Brett Glass wrote: > My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract > additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should > be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from > the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for > their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. The Netflix users either have to pay to you, or they have to pay to Netflix. Now, if you're paying $20 per megabit/s/month then you and your users are victims of lack of competition in your area. In properly developed places in the world with working competition, bandwidth prices are around $0.5-5/megabit/s/month. With those levels, you would have much less problem covering the cost of transit and your customers could use the service as much as they want because on margin, producing more bandwidth doesn't cost too much. At $20, I can understand that you're hurting. However, you paying $20 isn't Netflix problem. I don't see how Netflix could be re-imbursing you for your bandwidth costs, because it's not their fault either. So, the real problem you should spend your energy on is why are you paying so much for bandwidth, not going after Netflix. Since this is probably not something you can fix short term, I see no other option than to externalise your high margin cost to customers by imposing a monthly cap on usage and charging more for the people using the service more. You need to make sure your reveue model matches your expenditure model. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 14 07:17:43 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:17:43 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pqhJKtK=sC0Yo2wHQR-5xJ_ZV55UhYR6uRex+Yitif2w@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > > We've never been asked to POP that location. > > what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be > in coresite and defunct. there is some "any2" exchange claiming to be > the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock. > > is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and > not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel? i am having a hard > time finding it, web site, traffic, ts&cs, ... you know, like > <https://www.seattleix.net/>, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which > i am used. > It's now called "Any2 Denver": http://www.coresite.com/solutions/interconnection/Peering-Exchanges/ANY2/ANY2-Peering-Participants http://www.coresite.com/locations/denver http://www.coresite.com/resources/datasheet-facilities-de1-rev8 We're on it, and it's finally doing enough traffic to warrant a 10G port now. But you're right, it's nowhere in the same league as its bigger cousins. Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street address for it anywhere among their literature. :( > > Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. > > welcome to nanog. the list is a test of one's ability to find the > substance amidst the flack, this oft-repeated discussion being notable. > i wonder what we get if we pass the test. > Awww...I got a rock. :( > > randy > > Matt (with apologies to Charles Schultz) From marka at isc.org Mon Jul 14 07:23:17 2014 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:23:17 +1000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:52:12 +0200." <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <20140714072318.08E7E1A419C8@rock.dv.isc.org> In message <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929 at uplift.swm.pp.se>, Mikael Abraha msson writes: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Brett Glass wrote: > > > My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract > > additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should > > be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from > > the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for > > their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. > > The Netflix users either have to pay to you, or they have to pay to > Netflix. Now, if you're paying $20 per megabit/s/month then you and your > users are victims of lack of competition in your area. > > In properly developed places in the world with working competition, > bandwidth prices are around $0.5-5/megabit/s/month. With those levels, you > would have much less problem covering the cost of transit and your > customers could use the service as much as they want because on margin, > producing more bandwidth doesn't cost too much. At $20, I can understand > that you're hurting. However, you paying $20 isn't Netflix problem. I > don't see how Netflix could be re-imbursing you for your bandwidth costs, > because it's not their fault either. > > So, the real problem you should spend your energy on is why are you paying > so much for bandwidth, not going after Netflix. > > Since this is probably not something you can fix short term, I see no > other option than to externalise your high margin cost to customers by > imposing a monthly cap on usage and charging more for the people using the > service more. You need to make sure your reveue model matches your > expenditure model. And in some parts of the world bandwidth caps are the norm even for terrestial lines. My DOCIS home line has a 120G (down + up on this plan) limit then it is rate limited for the rest of the month. I don't hit the 120G limit though I regularly go over 60G. If I need more bandwidth I would go up to the next tier. This gives me a fixed price as well as well defined service expectations. > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 14 07:25:42 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:25:42 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=rpPrkWwxzSmFhC2PoyzHQOyzwtoAEsSQYzBd8bi8cr1w@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > [...] > > If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear > us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have > no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly > considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that > IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of > bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- > actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their > resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. > This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement > to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast > that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. > > --Brett Glass > > That would be awesome! If you find a way to obtain premium content that subscribers will pay for that doesn't include incredibly restrictive licensing terms that require you to account for every stream watched (including those streamed from downstream cache devices), I'm right there ready. Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find the rights holders who own the shows aren't willing to let their videos be served through a CDN that doesn't maintain draconian control over every stream (ie, that doesn't allow third party, uncontrolled caching). So, you may be able to build such a CDN; but the only content you may find that you can populate it with are cute cat videos recycled from last week's Youtube footage--which nobody wants to pay for. :( Matt From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 07:28:27 2014 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:28:27 +0200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Here is a different tale from another small ISP. We quite like Netflix (and HBO Nordic and all the other streaming services). We are a FTTH provider and services like Netflix is why people are buying our service instead of going with 4G LTE or ADSL. Without content we have nothing. Yes we have the same problems. Netflix does not peer in our city, in fact they do not peer in our country(!). We are too small for an appliance. Yes I really think Netflix should peer in Copenhagen, as going to Stockholm through 1000 km of fiber is not really an option. But when we are done whining about that, I have to say that paying transit to get Netflix is not prohibitive expensive. We pay 0.5 USD/Mbps. Our margins are not so poor that we can not afford to buy the content our users want. Yes buy content - if we were a TV network we also would have to pay for the content. Without content there is no need for our service. The other ISP seems to be paying 20 USD/Mbps and that is their error. They failed to find proper transit. I notice that Hurricane Electric is present at the IX mentioned, so I am quite sure they could get cheap transit, if they would just care to actually get some quotes. Regards, Baldur From oscar.vives at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 07:51:19 2014 From: oscar.vives at gmail.com (Tei) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:51:19 +0200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> Software is... herrr.... configurable. Maybe Netflix could be convinced so their box had a switch from complete catalog hosting / caching most used data. I get from this discussion thread that small ISP feel having these box download the whole catalog is more than what their customers (<1000) need. Moving this discussion away from "net neutrality" (that seems what netflix is doing in public anouncements) to how these boxes handle and operate would be better for everyone. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje. From dave at temk.in Mon Jul 14 12:40:22 2014 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:40:22 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rpPrkWwxzSmFhC2PoyzHQOyzwtoAEsSQYzBd8bi8cr1w@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=rpPrkWwxzSmFhC2PoyzHQOyzwtoAEsSQYzBd8bi8cr1w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAFJiuFqAem0TDbpQ2zzPPDikwN-jkCasy5YwHTea68jMDW7ecQ@mail.gmail.com> On Monday, July 14, 2014, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear > > us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs > have > > no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly > > considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that > > IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of > > bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- > > actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their > > resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. > > This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement > > to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast > > that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. > > > > --Brett Glass > > > > > That would be awesome! > > If you find a way to obtain premium content > that subscribers will pay for that doesn't include > incredibly restrictive licensing terms that require > you to account for every stream watched (including > those streamed from downstream cache devices), > I'm right there ready. > > Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find the rights holders > who own the shows aren't willing to let their videos > be served through a CDN that doesn't maintain > draconian control over every stream (ie, that > doesn't allow third party, uncontrolled caching). > > So, you may be able to build such a CDN; but > the only content you may find that you can > populate it with are cute cat videos recycled > from last week's Youtube footage--which nobody > wants to pay for. :( > > Matt > Nailed it, Matt, 100% From dave at temk.in Mon Jul 14 12:44:38 2014 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:44:38 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAFJiuFroaP7pdabwb7ZP3tTvKD40Wae531hM_Lqw2eDemxh40A@mail.gmail.com> The box doesn't even download 10% of the whole catalog and churns less than 1% a day. Obviously our demand curve is proprietary information, but I can assure you that a lot of people - engineers, mathematicians, etc. have looked at and improved the algorithm - but we are still constantly working to make it better. If you look at boxes like Qwilt, which is a universal flow-through cache, the best they can get is ~30% offload with Netflix traffic (in the real world, not in their lab). With multiple different encodes (driven by differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game. -Dave On Monday, July 14, 2014, Tei <oscar.vives at gmail.com> wrote: > Software is... herrr.... configurable. > > Maybe Netflix could be convinced so their box had a switch from > complete catalog hosting / caching most used data. I get from this > discussion thread that small ISP feel having these box download the > whole catalog is more than what their customers (<1000) need. Moving > this discussion away from "net neutrality" (that seems what netflix is > doing in public anouncements) to how these boxes handle and operate > would be better for everyone. > > > > -- > -- > ℱin del ℳensaje. > From md1clv at md1clv.com Mon Jul 14 12:58:35 2014 From: md1clv at md1clv.com (Daniel Ankers) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:58:35 +0100 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFJiuFroaP7pdabwb7ZP3tTvKD40Wae531hM_Lqw2eDemxh40A@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFJiuFroaP7pdabwb7ZP3tTvKD40Wae531hM_Lqw2eDemxh40A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CACQ0XpJ+1EyToycpqXD3YL7OxjMsAe5NX8Jq1ubWvHQD8w+qGg@mail.gmail.com> On 14 July 2014 13:44, Dave Temkin <dave at temk.in> wrote: > With multiple different encodes (driven by > differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact > same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game. > > -Dave What are the chances of performing transcoding on the device rather than sending multiple copies to it? It seems that would save bandwidth without risking any licensing issues. Dan From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jul 14 13:03:39 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:03:39 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CACQ0XpJ+1EyToycpqXD3YL7OxjMsAe5NX8Jq1ubWvHQD8w+qGg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFJiuFroaP7pdabwb7ZP3tTvKD40Wae531hM_Lqw2eDemxh40A@mail.gmail.com> <CACQ0XpJ+1EyToycpqXD3YL7OxjMsAe5NX8Jq1ubWvHQD8w+qGg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6608CA79-A26C-4FC6-B50C-2F5AEA229577@puck.nether.net> On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Daniel Ankers <md1clv at md1clv.com> wrote: > On 14 July 2014 13:44, Dave Temkin <dave at temk.in> wrote: > >> With multiple different encodes (driven by >> differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact >> same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game. >> >> -Dave > > > What are the chances of performing transcoding on the device rather than > sending multiple copies to it? > > It seems that would save bandwidth without risking any licensing issues. In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost equation. Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower cost, including in electricity to run the host CPU. Centralized transcoding on dedicated hardware makes sense. - Jared From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jul 14 13:08:03 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:08:03 -0400 Subject: ESPN worldcup streaming traffic In-Reply-To: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> References: <0B3FC6F0-B09E-4537-873F-484D3D4E5219@akcin.net> Message-ID: <55FBC592-C140-47C2-9F83-77A4CE3DAEAA@puck.nether.net> On Jul 13, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote: > Hi > > I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very well be one of the biggest watched via Internet event of all the times. > > Mehmet Here's some detailed analysis with many graphs showing the inferences with various matches and bandwidth. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/internet-traffic-during-the-world-cup-2014 - Jared From ryanshea at google.com Mon Jul 14 13:18:32 2014 From: ryanshea at google.com (Ryan Shea) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:18:32 -0400 Subject: Multi-Vendor Configuration Pusher Message-ID: <CAGWL9Q1KqBBDiFWAWCpvWPMR=5RC5gkZeha6nYuh6fMnio+9uw@mail.gmail.com> I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the Apache 2.0 license. Some of you may be interested. https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/ This is an easily extensible framework on top of paramiko and pexpect in Python for distributing configuration to (or running commands on) devices. Currently we have the following vendor targets: * aruba * brocade * cisconx * ciscoxr * hp (procurve) * ios * junos * generic ssh I have a thin wrapper around these vendor implementations which allows for threaded pushes and a couple small operational conveniences, but would appreciate any feedback <https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/issues/list> and testing. Please treat this as you would any *new* code -- do not consider it production quality. This project and Capirca <https://code.google.com/p/capirca/> go together like beans and cornbread, if you're into that sort of thing. Thanks, Ryan From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 14 13:46:33 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:46:33 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> Jay Ashworth wrote: [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] Jay, Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand. 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay. 5. Verizon and Comcast are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with Netflix making a visible stink about it. 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys "you pay." And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes. 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jul 14 14:03:58 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:03:58 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> References: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <91CFC483-ABA9-41E6-9123-C97C85BE1575@puck.nether.net> On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff. I think here is where many of us may disagree. While the current (public) dispute between Verizon and Netflix is fun for everyone to point fingers at saying "look here, there is a problem", the market also "mostly works". Verizon and Netflix seem to have reached (per press reports) an agreement and the largest problem today is the lack of ability to turn-up these ports quickly. Some market players move at light-speed, others at more glacial paces. I've been paying close attention to this for a variety of reasons. I've heard stories of some incumbents taking double-digit months to provision these types of services to correct congestion. I'm expecting the resolution time-scale to be much longer than was seen with the Comcast <-> Netflix connections. it would not surprise me if it took 18 months to provision these ports. (I recall phoning AT&T once asking for 100m service at a commercial address and it took a swat-team of people on the phone to tell me they would be 4x/mo what I was paying.. I politely told them they were too expensive and to not schedule a 8 person conference call for a basic service level). - Jared From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 14:23:59 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <A08FE520-1A70-47CB-A1C4-9874D7FF6099@pch.net> Message-ID: <24159143.6138.1405347839978.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> > (Yes, yes, I know, feeding the troll, etc.) I'd like to note for the record, Bill, that I don't think this conversation is in fact troll-feeding; I think that the accumulated weight of various reasoned explanations as to why the situation is the way we see it has value in the long term, in changing what people will try to get away with. And in any event, I started the thread; while I may have been rabble-rousing, I wasn't trolling. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 14:25:22 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=pqhJKtK=sC0Yo2wHQR-5xJ_ZV55UhYR6uRex+Yitif2w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <12742261.6140.1405347922580.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> > It's now called "Any2 Denver": > > Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street > address for it anywhere among their literature. :( It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 14:28:29 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140714072318.08E7E1A419C8@rock.dv.isc.org> Message-ID: <7117045.6142.1405348109904.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Andrews" <marka at isc.org> > And in some parts of the world bandwidth caps are the norm even for > terrestial lines. My DOCIS home line has a 120G (down + up on this > plan) limit then it is rate limited for the rest of the month. I > don't hit the 120G limit though I regularly go over 60G. If I need > more bandwidth I would go up to the next tier. This gives me a > fixed price as well as well defined service expectations. And as much as I am not a fan of usage-based pricing -- and as often as I disagree with Mark :-) -- I don't have any problem with *that* approach: You get a big first cap, and then you rate limit to something suitable for everything except bulk transfer, and you can buy a bigger cap. As long as that first cap is reasonable -- and 120GB is, even for me -- then it's not a real hassle. The problem is a) putting the limit in the right place (x% of the customers consume y% of the total throughput per month) and b) selling it to existing accounts. It won't affect 100-x% of the customers, and of those, some percentage less than 100% will complain. Is that acceptable? Depends. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 14:35:08 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:35:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <31179299.6144.1405348508694.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> > Jay Ashworth wrote: > > [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's > behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert > post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS > service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] > > Jay, > Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my > time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's > behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. > But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? Certainly. Just full disclosure: I'm as motivated to reply to this as I am *because* I already have a hard-on for VZN. :-) > Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: > > 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single > network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and > Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate > demand. Correct. > 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple > networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix > buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit > networks in the middle. > > 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit > networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that > wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. > > 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys > should pay. There's argument about whether VZN's claims are reasonable, and I tend to fall on the "they are not, even though I don't like VZN anyway" side; this thread was as much a sanity check as anything. > 5. Verizon and Comcast are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with > Netflix making a visible stink about it. Yup. > 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the > little guys "you pay." And yes, they're making it a little easier by > providing the CDN boxes. Fair amount easier I would say, but I don't think we have enough empirical evidence either way, at least not in this thread. > 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and > regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind > of stuff. I hope that it doesn't come to that. Regulation is horrible. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 14 15:17:14 2014 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:17:14 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> Message-ID: <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > > shell != internet. > > You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a > machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you > were "on the internet"? An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: To Be "On" the Internet March, 1995 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 15:31:49 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3629603.6154.1405351909708.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> > > You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a > > machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you > > were "on the internet"? > > > An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: > > To Be "On" the Internet > > March, 1995 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an argument, 19 years later... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From dave at temk.in Mon Jul 14 15:48:31 2014 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:48:31 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <CAFJiuFrVuTJPJtEk2X+pMGfdU8ObhJq8zfx88Fp+Wcx-XaOO7g@mail.gmail.com> We inquired about space & power in the location that Brett mentions (Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have transport options available back to both should we need it. That said, that shows what a messed up market Denver is - there is definitely pent up demand but if Netflix can't even get space and power there's clearly none left. For years we were promised that Coresite was building a giant new campus, but they seem to have all but abandoned it. -Dave On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > > We've never been asked to POP that location. > > what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be > in coresite and defunct. there is some "any2" exchange claiming to be > the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock. > > is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and > not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel? i am having a hard > time finding it, web site, traffic, ts&cs, ... you know, like > <https://www.seattleix.net/>, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which > i am used. > > > Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. > > welcome to nanog. the list is a test of one's ability to find the > substance amidst the flack, this oft-repeated discussion being notable. > i wonder what we get if we pass the test. > > randy > From bensons at queuefull.net Mon Jul 14 16:08:44 2014 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:08:44 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Message-ID: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big guys. Thoughts? Cheers, -Benson On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote: > > Just an observation: > > I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. > > It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over > is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever > it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin > fighting. > > In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, "could people > please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!!" > > Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have > a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! > > And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the > images please be generated locally and downloaded "off hours" > (whatever "off hours" meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape > etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! > > Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. > > Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG > imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because > students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare > THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. > > And games OMG games. > > I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being > lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the > university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in > physics which is where that was coming from.) > > And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) > > On and on. > > Now it's video streaming. > > And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. > > And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing > to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this > "Internet of Things" idea, too many people conversing with their > toaster-ovens. > > My comment has always been the same: > > There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to > figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into > bread lines. > > I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how > to bake more bread. This too shall pass. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, > Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jul 14 16:15:14 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:15:14 -0400 Subject: paleolithic inquiry In-Reply-To: <F4C8886E-A76C-4216-9541-C0ADEDDDE3EC@toaster.net> References: <m2k37k6200.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2wqbj2tfm.wl%randy@psg.com> <F4C8886E-A76C-4216-9541-C0ADEDDDE3EC@toaster.net> Message-ID: <533BCCD4-62C6-4011-879F-63AB492EE2BD@puck.nether.net> On Jul 12, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Sean Lazar <knife at toaster.net> wrote: > I think we should paint the garden shed blue... I will say I'm starting to see a larger number of devices in the marketplace and locations where cellular data are making sense to replace POTS as OOB. The problem I always have is, if you are going to use it as OOB, where does it connect back to. Many of them want to VPN into a few points, but without knowing the ongoing state of their ip connectivity, one doesn't want to end up as the upstream for your oob :) You also need considerations akin to rfc2182 as well. - Jared From george.herbert at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 16:42:50 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:42:50 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <6608CA79-A26C-4FC6-B50C-2F5AEA229577@puck.nether.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFJiuFroaP7pdabwb7ZP3tTvKD40Wae531hM_Lqw2eDemxh40A@mail.gmail.com> <CACQ0XpJ+1EyToycpqXD3YL7OxjMsAe5NX8Jq1ubWvHQD8w+qGg@mail.gmail.com> <6608CA79-A26C-4FC6-B50C-2F5AEA229577@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <38278CE8-16C9-4A22-AECB-A2A228E32901@gmail.com> > On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > > In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost equation. > > Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower cost, > including in electricity to run the host CPU. > > Centralized transcoding on dedicated hardware makes sense. > > - Jared Except perhaps for the (current discussion) small rural ISP. The bandwidth scaling equations out in Ruralistan have never been the same as in large metros. You see this in wireless delivered performance as well. Netflix is probably not the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's The Thing Du Jour which one can point at and criticize, so it 's becoming a focal point. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From dougb at dougbarton.us Mon Jul 14 16:49:31 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:49:31 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <38278CE8-16C9-4A22-AECB-A2A228E32901@gmail.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407140734410.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAPkb-7A5Fb0ce4Ti+wHfU9f7_LsO7v=VtAziLQyq_Rns8MHJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <CACg3zYHYspuh1MzYyE+edDKu3zYGp1NFLumj3pPnAXyvX1K8mQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFJiuFroaP7pdabwb7ZP3tTvKD40Wae531hM_Lqw2eDemxh40A@mail.gmail.com> <CACQ0XpJ+1EyToycpqXD3YL7OxjMsAe5NX8Jq1ubWvHQD8w+qGg@mail.gmail.com> <6608CA79-A26C-4FC6-B50C-2F5AEA229577@puck.nether.net> <38278CE8-16C9-4A22-AECB-A2A228E32901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C40A1B.6010902@dougbarton.us> On 07/14/2014 09:42 AM, George Herbert wrote: >> On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: >> >> In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost equation. >> >> Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower cost, >> including in electricity to run the host CPU. >> >> Centralized transcoding on dedicated hardware makes sense. >> >> - Jared > > Except perhaps for the (current discussion) small rural ISP. > > The bandwidth scaling equations out in Ruralistan have never been the same as in large metros. You see this in wireless delivered performance as well. Netflix is probably not the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's The Thing Du Jour which one can point at and criticize, so it 's becoming a focal point. Sure, but that's nothing more than the latest version of "I gambled on oversubscription as a business model, and lost." As you point out, and has been pointed out previously by several other posters, this is how the Internet works. Some new thing is always going to come along which uses more bandwidth than previous things, and if that new thing gets popular ... In Brett's case he made the point explicitly that it's not even a matter of his rural customers not being able to get service if his prices increase to cover his actual costs; it's a situation where if he raises prices he will lose his customers to his competition. (Which in all likelihood have prices for the rural customers which are in some manner "subsidized" by other customers.) So yeah, "Survival of the Fittest" sucks if you're not the fittest, but that's life sometimes. Doug From bzs at world.std.com Mon Jul 14 16:52:05 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:52:05 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <21444.2741.486355.219045@world.std.com> On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote: > On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > > > or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix > > > shell != internet. > > > > You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a > > machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you > > were "on the internet"? > > > An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: > > To Be "On" the Internet > > March, 1995 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 How about "Vicarious Access": No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From bmanning at isi.edu Mon Jul 14 16:59:25 2014 From: bmanning at isi.edu (manning bill) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:59:25 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21444.2741.486355.219045@world.std.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> <21444.2741.486355.21! 9045@world.std.com> Message-ID: <54FB5C35-2358-45AB-BC2D-5D3DA3473AF6@isi.edu> On 14July2014Monday, at 9:52, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote: > > On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote: >> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: >>> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >>>> or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix >>>> shell != internet. >>> >>> You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a >>> machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you >>> were "on the internet"? >> >> >> An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: >> >> To Be "On" the Internet >> >> March, 1995 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 > > How about "Vicarious Access": > > No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell > about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* Therein lies the fallacy of the “air-gap” … sometimes 3meters is not wide enough. /bill From rubensk at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 17:06:54 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:06:54 -0300 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k0-61kW6UAB9VxwpwRf-L4aJgSfa51Px3MZ7C-TK3JtRQ@mail.gmail.com> > > If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) > pay them > equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher > costs > per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than > receiving > nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes > streaming > more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without > caching is by > far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering "fat" content to > the consumer. > I noted most of the discussion seems to point to Internet bandwidth as a cost factor to ISPs, but I wonder what's the impact of Netflix on access network costs ? They might be harder to measure or directly correlate to streaming usage, but for non-wired networks (which is usually the case in rural networks), this impact sounds more harmful to me than uplink costs. Rubens From jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us Mon Jul 14 17:10:12 2014 From: jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us (John van Oppen) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:10:12 +0000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k0-61kW6UAB9VxwpwRf-L4aJgSfa51Px3MZ7C-TK3JtRQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k0-61kW6UAB9VxwpwRf-L4aJgSfa51Px3MZ7C-TK3JtRQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE763298E2011@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us> Let's just dispel this, internet bandwidth is not a very significant cost for access networks when compared to moving the data internally and maintaining the last mile access. That being said, incremental usage can drive huge capex, almost always in the very expensive last mile. Most of our cost (as a cable provider) on a per-bit basis is between the head-end and the customer, or between the head-end and the regional pop. The main driver here should be obvious, the bigger the pipe on the same route, the cheaper the bits... A cable carrying 300 kbit/sec costs just as much to maintain and install as a cable carrying 300 gbit/sec on the outside plant side of the equation, and that is where the real cost is. John -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:07 AM To: Nanog Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix > > If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; > (b) pay them equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote > ISPs have higher costs per customer and should get MORE per account > than Comcast, rather than receiving nothing); and (c) work with ISPs > to develop updated technology that makes streaming more efficient. > Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without caching is by > far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering "fat" content > to the consumer. > I noted most of the discussion seems to point to Internet bandwidth as a cost factor to ISPs, but I wonder what's the impact of Netflix on access network costs ? They might be harder to measure or directly correlate to streaming usage, but for non-wired networks (which is usually the case in rural networks), this impact sounds more harmful to me than uplink costs. Rubens From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 14 17:15:08 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:15:08 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> Benson, The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban) areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't drive to a larger town and bring a bagful home the way we can with books. There are a few potential paths forward that I can see and I'm sure there are more that others can identify: 1) Various governmental funding sources like CAF subsidize the market "enough" for smaller operators to continue to get by. 2) CAF and other funding make rural territories profitable enough that the large operators buy many/most/all of the smaller providers. 3) Prices for rural customers increase to cover the increased costs. 4) Content providers contribute $some_amount to help cover the costs of connectivity. 5) Operators in rural markets fall further behind making rural markets even less attractive and that contributes the trend of rural to urban migration here in the US. Of course a combination of these is also possible or local governments could get more involved, but these look to be the most likely in no real order. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote: > Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I > also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just > about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may > be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as > the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my > local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett > essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big > ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big > guys. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > -Benson > On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote: > > > > > Just an observation: > > > > I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. > > > > It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over > > is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever > > it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin > > fighting. > > > > In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, "could people > > please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!!" > > > > Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have > > a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! > > > > And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the > > images please be generated locally and downloaded "off hours" > > (whatever "off hours" meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape > > etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! > > > > Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. > > > > Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG > > imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because > > students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare > > THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. > > > > And games OMG games. > > > > I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being > > lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the > > university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in > > physics which is where that was coming from.) > > > > And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) > > > > On and on. > > > > Now it's video streaming. > > > > And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. > > > > And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing > > to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this > > "Internet of Things" idea, too many people conversing with their > > toaster-ovens. > > > > My comment has always been the same: > > > > There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to > > figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into > > bread lines. > > > > I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how > > to bake more bread. This too shall pass. > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, > > Canada > > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > > From bzs at world.std.com Mon Jul 14 17:17:22 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:17:22 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21444.4258.124978.700325@world.std.com> From: Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> >Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I >also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just >about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may >be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as >the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my >local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett >essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big >ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big >guys. > >Thoughts? But if the marginal cost of carrying netflix and similar approached zero this wouldn't be a problem. A big problem with being a usenet server was that it could take 50GB of disk space, easy. How to monetize all that disk space in a day when a GB disk cost $500? A surcharge for clients using usenet? Charge downstream customers you fed? New protocols with less store and more aggressive forward? Evolve to sites which specialize in usenet service rather than expecting every mom & pop ISP to provide it as a base measure of service? But today I can get key fobs with 64GB for about $50, and of course 4TB disks for under $200. So the apparent urgency of the content business models is directly related to the costs, which tend to drop over time, usually to the point that it becomes non-urgent (or argue that they can't.) More importantly it tends to go through the same basic patterns: Identify who is benefiting. Argue about what "benefiting" means. Try to assess relative benefits and costs proportionately. Improve technology step-wise to mitigate and possibly reallocate costs assessing any effects on benefits. Follow the technology curve. Etc. Video streaming seems challenging. But so did 50GB of disk once. I suppose if I were to make a concrete suggestion it would be to try to develop hypothetical cost curves, thresholds (at what cost does it not matter even to the more vulnerable?), estimate dates (hah!), and not put more energy into the problem than such an analysis merits. In particular soas not to develop potentially disruptive new models whose implementation and cost of implementation one might soon enough come to regret. Also remembering that extrapolations tend to be foiled by discrete events. For example, Apr 1, 2017: Comcast/TW buys Netflix... On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote: > > Just an observation: > > I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. > > It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over > is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever > it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin > fighting. > > In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, "could people > please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!!" > > Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have > a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! > > And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the > images please be generated locally and downloaded "off hours" > (whatever "off hours" meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape > etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! > > Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. > > Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG > imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because > students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare > THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. > > And games OMG games. > > I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being > lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the > university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in > physics which is where that was coming from.) > > And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) > > On and on. > > Now it's video streaming. > > And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. > > And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing > to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this > "Internet of Things" idea, too many people conversing with their > toaster-ovens. > > My comment has always been the same: > > There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to > figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into > bread lines. > > I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how > to bake more bread. This too shall pass. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, > Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > <p dir=3D"ltr">Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's = realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue -= this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidat= ion, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least i= n the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappoin= ted by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amaz= on. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than= it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't com= pete with the big guys.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">Thoughts?</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">Cheers,<br> -Benson<br> </p> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, "Barry Shein"= <<a href=3D"mailto:bzs at world.std.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> Just an observation:<br> <br> I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks.<br> <br> It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over<br> is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever<br> it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin<br> fighting.<br> <br> In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, "could people<br> please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!!"<br= > <br> Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have<br> a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?!<br> <br> And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the<br> images please be generated locally and downloaded "off hours"<br> (whatever "off hours" meant on the internet) or even shipped via = tape<br> etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!!<br> <br> Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb.<br> <br> Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG<br> imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because<br> students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare<br> THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know.<br> <br> And games OMG games.<br> <br> I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being<br> lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the<br> university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in<b= r> physics which is where that was coming from.)<br> <br> And the public getting on the internet (ahem.)<br> <br> On and on.<br> <br> Now it's video streaming.<br> <br> And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore.<br> <br> And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing<br> to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this<br> "Internet of Things" idea, too many people conversing with their<= br> toaster-ovens.<br> <br> My comment has always been the same:<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into= <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0bread lines.<br> <br> I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how<= br> to bake more bread. This too shall pass.<br> <br> --<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Barry Shein<br> <br> The World =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| bzs at TheWorld.co= m =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | <a href=3D"http://www.TheWorld.com" = target=3D"_blank">http://www.TheWorld.com</a><br> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| D= ial-Up: US, PR, Canada<br> Software Tool & Die =C2=A0 =C2=A0| Public Access Internet =C2=A0 =C2=A0= | SINCE 1989 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 *oo*<br> </blockquote></div> From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 14 17:25:31 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:25:31 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <31179299.6144.1405348508694.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> <31179299.6144.1405348508694.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oMZfonA4Ycsu3R4T_DiJQygCytv5sczYRUbJDiKK3ysQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > [...] I already have a hard-on for VZN. :-) > > I think Jay just won the TMI award for this thread... ;P Matt From aaron at westfield.ma.edu Mon Jul 14 17:26:10 2014 From: aaron at westfield.ma.edu (Childs, Aaron) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:26:10 +0000 Subject: Comcast DNS Team Message-ID: <10B60E2061BA5D42B4B91A06763E2C425BB460AC@ex-mbx-1.ads.wsc.ma.edu> Good Afternoon, Could a member of the Comcast DNS team contact me off-list at archilds at comcast.net<mailto:archilds at comcast.net>? Thank you, Aaron [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF9F67.2CC35380] Aaron Childs Associate Director [cid:image003.png at 01CF5889.646358F0] Infrastructure Services Information Technology Services Wilson Hall - 577 Western Ave. Westfield MA 01086 P 413.572.5527 F 413.572.5615 aaron at westfield.ma.edu<mailto:aaron at westfield.ma.edu> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4817 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/80ffddfb/attachment.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2757 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/80ffddfb/attachment-0001.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 16127 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/80ffddfb/attachment.png> From jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com Mon Jul 14 17:32:43 2014 From: jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com (Jeff Tantsura) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:32:43 +0000 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <201407082256.26816.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407082256.26816.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Mark, BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so there¹s no forwarding towards any destination filtered out from RIB. Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone and in case of incorrect configuration would result in blackholing. Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> Organization: SEACOM Reply-To: <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM To: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org> Subject: Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer >On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag Bhatia wrote: > >> In this scenario what is best practice for giving full >> table to downstream? > >In our case, we have three types of edge routers; Juniper >MX480 + Cisco ASR1006, and the Cisco ME3600X. > >For the MX480 and ASR1006 have no problems supporting a full >table. So customers peer natively. > >The ME3600X is a small switch, that supports only up to >24,000 IPv4 and 5,000 IPv6 FIB entries. However, Cisco have >a feature called BGP Selective Download: > > http://tinyurl.com/nodnmct > >Using BGP-SD, we can send a full BGP table from our route >reflectors to our ME3600X switches, without worrying about >them entering the FIB, i.e., they are held only in memory. >The beauty - you can advertise these routes to customers >natively, without clunky eBGP Multi-Hop sessions running >rampant. > >Of course, with BGP-SD, you still need a 0/0 + ::/0 route in >the FIB for traffic to flow from your customers upstream, >but that is fine as it's only two entries :-). > >If your system supports a BGP-SD-type implementation, I'd >recommend it, provided you have sufficient control plane >memory. > >Cheers, > >Mark. From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 14 17:41:12 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:41:12 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Benson, > > > The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no > interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban) > areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and > unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't drive > to a larger town and bring a bagful home the way we can with books. > But if that's the case, then Brett has no issue. As Benson noted: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> > wrote: > > > Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I > > also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't > just > > about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It > may > > be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as > > the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my > > local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett > > essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big > > ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big > > guys. > Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. If the big guys don't want to build into the rural area, and aren't competing with Brett, he can charge accordingly (the scenario Scott outlines). If the big guys *have* built into the area where Brett is serving users, then we're outside of Scott's model, and into Benson's model, and it may well be a case of the local bookstore not being able to compete with Amazon anymore. While having no competitors in an area might suck for the *consumers*, I don't think it's the situation that Brett is facing; I think he's talking about trying to compete with large carriers who have indeed built out into his area, and have a large economy of scale on their side. I could be wrong, though; I often am. Thanks! Matt From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 14 17:49:49 2014 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:49:49 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <1AB742CA-A12B-400F-86C3-D6943EECE03C@gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C11917.2070600@meetinghouse.net> <21441.47639.938707.198431@world.std.com> <53C1E0D6.50905@dcrocker.net> <1AB742CA-A12B-400F-86C3-D6943EECE03C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C4183D.2050301@dcrocker.net> On 7/14/2014 9:09 AM, David Farber wrote: > Three years > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:28 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote: ... > Also, although CSNet started with NSF money, it was required to become > self-funded within 5 years. Hmmm... I believe the point of confusion is the difference between the initial contract, versus the strategic requirement to become self-funded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSNET "CSNET was funded by the National Science Foundation for an initial three-year period from 1981 to 1984." and "A stipulation for the award of the contract was that the network needed to become self-sufficient by 1986." The wikipedia article confirms this distinction by citing the NSF itself: http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/internet/modest.htm "By 1986, the network was to be self-supporting." d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 14 17:57:38 2014 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:57:38 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <3629603.6154.1405351909708.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <3629603.6154.1405351909708.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53C41A12.50906@dcrocker.net> On 7/14/2014 8:31 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an > argument, 19 years later... Well, after all, one does need to /earn/ the title of visionary... However, you've provided nice closure to some childhood trauma: I've no math skills, while my brother who is 5 years my senior has an excess of them. When I was quite young -- maybe 4? -- he taught me to participate in a parlor trick where I would demonstrate astonishing arithmetic skills. He would feed me a series of numbers and operations (4 + 3 * 2 - 2 +...) and I'd say the final answer and it was always correct. The gimmick was that by pre-arrangement he said he would say the final answer early on, in a particular place in the sequence, and then he'd make the computation wander around until it came back to that number. Friends and family were amazed. Except our mother, who knew I wasn't that bright. I guess now you've discerned that she was wrong. On 7/14/2014 9:52 AM, Barry Shein wrote: > How about "Vicarious Access": > > No physical connection but people keep coming into your office to tell > about some dopey thing they just read or saw on the internet. Might be time to revise the RFC... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From joly at punkcast.com Mon Jul 14 18:25:41 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:25:41 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C41A12.50906@dcrocker.net> References: <3629603.6154.1405351909708.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C41A12.50906@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0e5MZyHoQGGMQjHp77bg9uinRs+Yx=b1=cXSturngCiA@mail.gmail.com> As far as the LARIATs of this world go, wouldn't the optimum CDN solution be satellite multicast caching? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jul 14 19:06:29 2014 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:06:29 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C42A35.9090403@matthew.at> On 7/13/2014 4:00 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: > >> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >> the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, > My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract > additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix > should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix > subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They > want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include > paying ransom to third parties. Oh come on. [An aside: I really preferred when Brett kept his ranting over on another list I read, but I do find it amusing that after all these decades of running an ISP, he's finally shown up on the list where people who build ISPs talk] > We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain > minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street > in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain > maximum duty cycle. That is very nice of you. Or perhaps you're actually operating a *business* and that is exactly the service you are selling to your customers. Not unlike what many other ISPs have been doing for decades now. You have arranged to bring bits from "the Internet" to your customers and vice versa. And you know that most customers won't use all of the bits they possibly could all of the time, so the bandwidth you've provisioned from your transit provider and/or peers is substantially less than what you sell to the customers, but you're careful to point out to the customers that there's no guarantee they can get all of their locally-provisioned bandwidth all of the time, and you try as you might to ensure that all of your customers get some of the bandwidth most of the time. And of course you charge them for that service. You can't charge them for what they'd really like, because what they'd really like costs you too much to provide... and (more importantly) you're not the only game in town, and so if you charged too much, you'd have no customers at all. Funny how business works... you need to charge more than it costs you, in order to make a profit, but not so much that nobody buys at all. I seem to remember this from a basic economics class. So now we've got the baseline of what's important to you... charging a low enough price that you continue to have customers, but high enough that you don't starve. Like all small business owners before you. The guy at the local hardware store probably shares your pain. > But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific > third party service such as Netflix. No, of course you can't. That's the great thing about the Internet... services and software comes and goes, and yet all the complications stay the same. A few years ago, the thing that made your life harder was Skype. Your very own customers went and installed software on their computers that actually sent and received data over their Internet connections that you were selling them. The gall they must have had to do such a thing! Suddenly, your infrastructure was being asked to carry real-time audio and video streams, when before the design assumption was that such a thing wouldn't happen. And it was being asked to carry bits to and from your customers that were indexing the location of other Skype users that weren't even your customers! Oh no! But, as has happened before and would happen again, your customers simply expected to be able to install software that uses the Internet. Sure, it made your life harder, just like when YouTube showed up and your customers started to get emails from their friends about cat videos. Videos! Huge amounts of bandwidth wasted on cats, when a simple text posting to Usenet about one's cat would have sufficed. Not that you didn't try... you tried updating your policies, adding things like "we prohibit the use of the Slingbox on residential connections" when another new way to use one's Internet connection showed up in the marketplace... But it wasn't entirely successful... So you complained, and complained, and complained about how your customer's usage of the Internet had changed... not because it was going to stop YouTube, or Skype, or Napster, or anything that had come before or would come in the future... but because it made the world more aware of the plight of a small business owner who wanted to not charge his customers more than the competition was charging, but who also had high costs because of where and how he chose to do business. That's right. Nobody forced you to establish your ISP in Laramie, or has prevented you from raising funding and trenching fiber right to your doorstep. In fact, as you have repeatedly pointed out, large ISPs have economies of scale , including networks that are conveniently close to major peering points, and enough traffic to attract the attention of CDNs that wish to place content closer to them... so I guess the real question is: who forced you to keep your ISP small and local, instead of growing it into a major national or international player? My guess: Nobody but you yourself made that decision. Smaller competitors almost always are forced to compete on dimensions other than those that economies of scale bring... I'm sure there's a small handcrafted furniture shop in Laramie, and I'm sure their furniture costs a lot more to make than what Wal-Mart is buying from their Chinese supplier. That was their choice... to start and run a business that can't take advantage of economies of scale and leverage that their competition has, because they've deliberately chosen to *not* grow that way. Adopt their mindset, take a deep breath, and maybe you'll enjoy being a local small business owner, instead of someone the entire universe is apparently trying to crush. > If Netflix wants us to do that, > it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. Have you considered that maybe Netflix doesn't want to do that? Maybe they really just don't care if performance to your customers is guaranteed. Maybe that's because they know your customers are already so used to being hobbled by other restrictions on the use of their Internet service that they figure they won't care about Netflix performance. Maybe it is because they have millions of other customers who they can solve performance issues from more efficiently by improving performance to major carriers. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to your ISP yet. Maybe they hate Wyoming. That's their business. You want them to pay you, grow your ISP into something they care about. > That's only fair, > because we would be doing something special just for it -- something > which costs money. You're free to make infrastructure improvements that improve your customers' ability to access Internet services whenever you like. Or to fail to do so... and see if they like you enough to not switch to the competition who has. Me, I can't wait until Google Fiber shows up in your town. > > If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear > us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have > no choice but to react. Oh brother... another "reaction" to yet another novel use of the Internet that you didn't originally design your ISP to handle. Have you considered just doing the engineering instead of complaining? > One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly > considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that > IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of > bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- > actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their > resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. > This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement > to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast > that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. I wish you luck with this venture. You would undoubtedly learn a lot about the costs Netflix has experienced while gaining the right to stream (and now create) content that users want to see. But since complaining about the latest thing is so much easier, I expect we'll see a lot more of that instead of this service. Matthew Kaufman ps. Please read my background before claiming in your response that I don't know anything about {starting and running a small ISP in the early 1990s, operating a nationwide ISP/CLEC and associated backbone with significant peering, owning and operating a wireless ISP, peer-to-peer content delivery, video CDNs, Skype} From joelja at bogus.com Mon Jul 14 19:38:10 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:38:10 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k0-61kW6UAB9VxwpwRf-L4aJgSfa51Px3MZ7C-TK3JtRQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k0-61kW6UAB9VxwpwRf-L4aJgSfa51Px3MZ7C-TK3JtRQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C431A2.4030404@bogus.com> On 7/14/14 10:06 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) >> pay them >> equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher >> costs >> per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than >> receiving >> nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop updated technology that makes >> streaming >> more efficient. Bandwidth is expensive, and unicast streaming without >> caching is by >> far the most inefficient conceivable way of delivering "fat" content to >> the consumer. >> > I noted most of the discussion seems to point to Internet bandwidth as a > cost factor to ISPs, but I wonder what's the impact of Netflix on access > network costs ? They might be harder to measure or directly correlate to > streaming usage, but for non-wired networks (which is usually the case in > rural networks), this impact sounds more harmful to me than uplink costs. if your customer buys 20, needs 6 and gets 4 I guess that's problem, if the customer buys 2 and needs 4 that's a different one... It's politically inconvenient to assign blame to third parties for the provisioned capacity of the last mile network. > > Rubens > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 286 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/53711f74/attachment.pgp> From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jul 14 19:40:34 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:40:34 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400." <23482295.6122.1405304253917.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <23482295.6122.1405304253917.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <13524.1405366834@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your > customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single > uplink count here, yes. > > You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are > other networks, including larger business networks that are or might > become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers have > an ASN. And for a chunk of time, we looked like a transit network for traffic that passed through us heading for Internet2, if you were looking at us from the Internet2 side, and damned few eyeballs unless you call a few dozen HPC clusters eyeballs. But if you were looking at us from our Cogent upstream, we looked like an eyeball network because we didn't provide those downstreams any transit in Cogent's direction, so all that was visible was our tens of thousands of eyeballs that were all looking at stuff that wasn't on Internet2. (And yes, things got "interesting" a few times in our routing swamp when we didn't keep straight which thing went where, and we leaked a route or two and looked like eyeballs to Internet2, or transit to Cogent...) So as I said, it depends on where you were looking at us from. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/938ea752/attachment.pgp> From bbqroast at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:08:53 2014 From: bbqroast at gmail.com (mcfbbqroast .) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:08:53 +1200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKJkDEug_1MY-1SzETXjJWABV-7eHS+Ao5wxeW-8+G2auMCo-w@mail.gmail.com> I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a "Netflix tax" another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory?? From jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us Mon Jul 14 20:16:56 2014 From: jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us (John van Oppen) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:16:56 +0000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEug_1MY-1SzETXjJWABV-7eHS+Ao5wxeW-8+G2auMCo-w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEug_1MY-1SzETXjJWABV-7eHS+Ao5wxeW-8+G2auMCo-w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE763298E40CC@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us> The choice for ISPs at larger scale is peering or caching, peering is cheaper than caching as power is not as cheap as you think as well as the requirement to have two of everything for failover if you do caches (ie can't have my transits or more likely my backhaul blow up if the caches go away). I also typically don't want to give up the opportunity cost on the power in our main pops as it is not what the power costs, but rather what you could sell it for that matters in most of our core sites. We don't cache in head-ends as we still would need the backhaul anyway if the caches fail so we can't really reduce the backhaul requirement much. We have some middle tier sites in the cable network, but the benefit of throwing caches at those locations has never really been there since they are not staffed the same way etc. I think a lot of big networks have this issue. John -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of mcfbbqroast . Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:09 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a "Netflix tax" another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory?? From charles at thefnf.org Mon Jul 14 20:23:17 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:23:17 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <m2lhs062ka.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF356E.8040601@meetinghouse.net> <m2oaww676a.wl%randy@psg.com> <53BF39E2.2010606@meetinghouse.net> <CAAAwwbUBK7gxoH4T8tuLAQmdxX677e6=76cmywXF8igadn6V4Q@mail.gmail.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <CAEmG1=qWayJqP=+Fh19dkK4fhyVwmTnA1QCLAYm10UccF4wofg@mail.gmail.com> <m2lhs062ka.wl%randy@psg.com> Message-ID: <1909f7d9cbff6aca43410fe39278596f@thefnf.org> On 2014-07-10 21:40, Randy Bush wrote: >> Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same >> paragraph is just...dizzying. > > if we filtered or otherwise prevented conjecturbation, jumping to > conclusions based on misuse of tools, hyperbole, misinformation, fud, > and downright lying, how would we know the list exploder was working? Randy, The ipv6 vs NAT discussions of course! From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 14 20:25:34 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <13524.1405366834@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <4146711.6174.1405369534360.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > > > You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of > > your > > customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are > > single > > uplink count here, yes. > > > > You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers are > > other networks, including larger business networks that are or might > > become multi-homed. In short, if the plurality of your customers > > have > > an ASN. > > And for a chunk of time, we looked like a transit network for traffic > that > passed through us heading for Internet2, if you were looking at us > from the > Internet2 side, and damned few eyeballs unless you call a few dozen > HPC > clusters eyeballs. > > But if you were looking at us from our Cogent upstream, we looked like > an > eyeball network because we didn't provide those downstreams any > transit in > Cogent's direction, so all that was visible was our tens of thousands > of > eyeballs that were all looking at stuff that wasn't on Internet2. > So as I said, it depends on where you were looking at us from. What you *look like from outside* depends on whence you look, yes... But that doesn't affect what you *are*; my definition was based on the view of the mythical superobserver *above* flatland, who can see everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or vice versa, and those parts are in separate ASen. Do we have disagreement on that point? I've mostly been above the forest, rather than in the trees... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jul 14 20:34:15 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:34:15 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400." <4146711.6174.1405369534360.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <4146711.6174.1405369534360.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <29705.1405370055@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would > venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even > if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or > vice versa, and those parts are in separate ASen. Yeah, at that point we looked like a dessert topping *and* a floor wax.. :) (We've since moved most of the transit games into a more separate AS, so the distinction is easier to see from outside) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/3300ad49/attachment.pgp> From george.herbert at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:42:28 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:42:28 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> > On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > > Brett's concerns seem to center around his > ability to be cost-competitive with the big > guys in his area...which implies there *are* > big guys in his area to have to compete with. He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is unclear. There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable customer base... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 14 14:05:24 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:05:24 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: >>>> ahhh. so >>>> not government regulated == wild west >>> lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west >> at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet, >> usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation. > > yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other at one point, way back) Oh joy, a network neutrality discussion, and it's taking place 1) on nanog, 2) over the weekend, and 3) when I no longer run an ISP or a data-center/content-source... It took some doing, but I was able to quell my urge to respond immediately (being at the beach with family likely helped enormously... :-) So the right answer to this entire mess would have been to provide competitive cost- based access to the underlying facilities (copper, coax, fiber) including associated colocation and power services, and consider that justified given the long regulated history that made the establishment of the cable plants and rights-of-way possible. (Note - we actually had this equal-facility-access framework in the US at one point, but it was later "fixed" by a determination that effective competition could be provided among service providers of different technologies (e.g. FTTH, cable, dish) and that nothing more was needed. The result was the vertical integration that we often see today - from access loop through Internet service and up to and including content in many cases. Attempting to now address this problem (of equitable access to Internet users) via regulation of interconnection arrangements may not be very productive in the end; it is a palliative measure that has potential for great complexity - similar to having every gated community in the country file paperwork describing their programs for handling of local delivery and pizza companies, and/or any fees for priority access along the community roads, and all of this despite most of the community's insistence that third-party vehicles should just be allowed to pass through. There generally should be a point of interconnection which allows for settlement- free handoff of traffic to local customers; the current industry-based "peering model" has done a reasonable job of finding such accommodations when they can be achieved, even if it does so with only nominal outside visibility. I understand the desire for more consistency and public visibility into such industry agreements, but would have greatly preferred efforts in that area as a prerequisite step (which would allow for actual data and analysis to be introduced in the discussion) before any further measures such as per-agreement regulatory review or formalization of tiered priority mechanisms... Alas, that sort of structured approach is not how government generally works, so we're going to go from standstill to "the complete solution" in one large leap and have to hope it works out for the best. /John Disclaimer: My views alone - I would appreciate not having my packets molested if you should happen to disagree with them... ;-) From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 14 22:12:29 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:29 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> > wrote: > > > > Brett's concerns seem to center around his > > ability to be cost-competitive with the big > > guys in his area...which implies there *are* > > big guys in his area to have to compete with. > > > He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His > key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from > wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and > Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . > > Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit is > unclear. > > There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out > there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable > customer base... > Ah--right, that was the genesis of my rant about "if you don't have an ASN, you don't exist". He'd first have to get an ASN before he could engage in getting a different upstream transit, or connect to different exchange points, etc. As much as people insisted you can be an ISP without an AS number, I will note that it's much, MUCH harder, to the point where the ARIN registration fees for the AS number would quickly be recouped by the cost savings of being able to shop for more competitive connectivity options. Matt > > > George William Herbert > Sent from my iPhone > From SNaslund at medline.com Mon Jul 14 22:24:17 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:24:17 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of "doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said "Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge. Steven Naslund Chicago IL From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 14 23:15:29 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:15:29 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. Miles Fidelman Naslund, Steve wrote: > Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of "doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. > > 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). > 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. > 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. > 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. > > Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. > > I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said "Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. > > I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. > > Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge. > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From aaron at heyaaron.com Mon Jul 14 23:19:11 2014 From: aaron at heyaaron.com (Aaron C. de Bruyn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:19:11 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <CAEE+rGqM0AvjpHhaLT35E2iv__cn-DAmC3joi_i7K8nPzMMjgw@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote: > I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You > either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one provider. They have a guaranteed monopoly for the next few decades. They got a huge grant to put in FTTH from the government and they still have pricing from the last decade. An 8/1 connection is $120/mo and require you to get dialtone (they say it's FCC mandated) to the tune of an additional $20/mo (that's with no long distance and every possible feature stripped). (Side-note: when the power fails during the winter, they turn off all internet access after 5 minutes so they can save battery power for the phones--which travel the exact same fiber path as the interntet). I'm not a huge fan of Comcast's recent actions, but if they rolled into the area with the same offer they have "in town" (100/25 for ~$75/mo), I would switch faster than you could spell monopoly. There's plenty of fiber lying within 1/4 mile from my house (runs between Seattle and Portland), but none of the companies are interested in being a local ISP, or leasing to a non-business, and I couldn't afford to start my own, let alone trenching my own fiber to other residents who are also fed up. It doesn't matter to me what "the big players" do because as a consumer, I still don't have a choice. So while I find my local provider's practices utterly despicable, I can't exactly speak with my wallet unless I quit being an IT guy, cancel my internet, and start raising goats or something. -A From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 14 23:32:36 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:32:36 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> Matt, While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all 6 of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband subs. I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do with Internet access. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Brett's concerns seem to center around his > > > ability to be cost-competitive with the big > > > guys in his area...which implies there *are* > > > big guys in his area to have to compete with. > > > > > > He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His > > key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from > > wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and > > Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . > > > > Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit > is > > unclear. > > > > There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out > > there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable > > customer base... > > > > Ah--right, that was the genesis of my rant about > "if you don't have an ASN, you don't exist". > He'd first have to get an ASN before he could > engage in getting a different upstream transit, > or connect to different exchange points, etc. > > As much as people insisted you can be an > ISP without an AS number, I will note that > it's much, MUCH harder, to the point where > the ARIN registration fees for the AS number > would quickly be recouped by the cost savings > of being able to shop for more competitive > connectivity options. > > Matt > > > > > > > > George William Herbert > > Sent from my iPhone > > > From nanog at jima.us Mon Jul 14 23:43:35 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:43:35 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFJiuFrVuTJPJtEk2X+pMGfdU8ObhJq8zfx88Fp+Wcx-XaOO7g@mail.gmail.com> References: <201407140200.UAA13472@mail.lariat.net> <m2zjgczo1u.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAFJiuFpkbGJUEh-stye7N72FkW4C6bFKv=kx8MdRGtQO2LXMEQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2wqbgzm8e.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAFJiuFrVuTJPJtEk2X+pMGfdU8ObhJq8zfx88Fp+Wcx-XaOO7g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C46B27.5090802@jima.us> On 2014-07-14 09:48, Dave Temkin wrote: > We inquired about space & power in the location that Brett mentions > (Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power > to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have > transport options available back to both should we need it. > > That said, that shows what a messed up market Denver is - there is > definitely pent up demand but if Netflix can't even get space and power > there's clearly none left. For years we were promised that Coresite was > building a giant new campus, but they seem to have all but abandoned it. Dave, Thank you for clarifying what seemed, at a distance, to be a rather strange decision. That assessment also explains away some routing oddities I've observed over the years. Jima From nanog at brettglass.com Mon Jul 14 23:45:56 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:45:56 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407142345.RAA24644@mail.lariat.net> At 02:42 PM 7/14/2014, George Herbert wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > > > > Brett's concerns seem to center around his > > ability to be cost-competitive with the big > > guys in his area...which implies there *are* > > big guys in his area to have to compete with. > >He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I >recall. His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL >wire loop ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to >have fiber into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that >Denver exchange pointlet . > >Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better >transit is unclear. Why don't you simply ask me? There have been a huge number of incorrect, mostly speculative assertions made about my business in this thread, but I simply don't have time to correct all of them (I have a business to run and customers to help). --Brett Glass From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 15 00:39:07 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:39:07 +1000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <12742261.6140.1405347922580.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAEmG1=pqhJKtK=sC0Yo2wHQR-5xJ_ZV55UhYR6uRex+Yitif2w@mail.gmail.com> <12742261.6140.1405347922580.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <20140715003907.GF32153@hezmatt.org> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> > > > It's now called "Any2 Denver": > > > > Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street > > address for it anywhere among their literature. :( > > It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage. I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere? - Matt -- If Alan Turing was alive today, the homosexuality would be OK but he'd be in trouble for codebreaking. -- Martin Bacon From lyndon at orthanc.ca Tue Jul 15 00:50:42 2014 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:50:42 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140715003907.GF32153@hezmatt.org> References: <CAEmG1=pqhJKtK=sC0Yo2wHQR-5xJ_ZV55UhYR6uRex+Yitif2w@mail.gmail.com> <12742261.6140.1405347922580.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140715003907.GF32153@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <D7F74ADF-6E3B-4FD9-BEFA-FA57C7597D07@orthanc.ca> On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote: > I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere? It's noodling around in the disused lavatory with Moaning Myrtle. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/880bdb43/attachment.pgp> From mpetach at netflight.com Tue Jul 15 01:47:18 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:47:18 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Matt, > > While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP > should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators > around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for > connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is > nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all 6 > of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband > subs. > And as long as they're happy with their single upstream connectivity picture, more power to them. But the minute they're less than happy with their connectivity option, it would sure be nice to have their own ASN and their own IP space, so that going to a different upstream provider would be possible. Heck, even just having it as a *bargaining point* would be useful. By not having it, they're essentially locking the slave collar around their own neck, and handing the leash to their upstream, along with their wallet. As a freedom-of-choice loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone would subject their business to that level of slavery. But I do acknowledge your point, that for some category of people, they are happy as clams with that arrangement. > > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do > with Internet access. > Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does having an ASN make you an ISP. Thanks! Matt From jared at puck.nether.net Tue Jul 15 02:01:11 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:01:11 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <D0600DC0-8D14-479B-9F20-282DEA11EFAD@puck.nether.net> On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship > in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive > ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does > having an ASN make you an ISP. I think here is where you are wrong. There are many people out there that have cobbled together ISPs and have appliances that will load balance or do failover with multiple DSL or hybrid DSL/Cable/T1 solutions. I do understand the line you have drawn, but some of these people compete against the largest companies in the world and win business because of their uptime and support. I wish they wouldn’t be doing “CGN” or CGN-lite type things but it happens and they don’t need an ASN to be competitive. And having an ASN would drive their costs up significantly. $500 in fees from ARIN represents a large number of subscribers profit. - Jared From hugo at slabnet.com Tue Jul 15 02:46:12 2014 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:46:12 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407142345.RAA24644@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <201407142345.RAA24644@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <20140715024612.GD30583@slab-wks-04.slabnet.com> Hi Brett, >Why don't you simply ask me? I can only speak for myself, but I thought that's kind of what I and others were doing in replying to your messages, stating either support or counterpoints, and asking questions (?). With this being a list and your (as of recently) being a member of the list, my assumption (and I'm betting others') is that it's a conversation and in our replies, you may be inclined to respond or you may not. >There have been a huge number of incorrect, mostly speculative assertions made >about my business in this thread, but I simply don't have time to correct all >of them (I have a business to run and customers to help). And that's fine; you're under zero obligation to anyone on the list. That said: finding radio silence, chances are the conversation will carry on and we're left to guessing/theorizing/extrapolating. When I said "I really don't understand the line of reasoning..." I wasn't being flippant. I just know how things look from my own experience; I don't know the full details of your business and so I honestly don't know what led to your take on the topic. Your experience dealing with Netflix has obviously been more negative than mine, and I don't fully get why that is. The prevailing trend seems to be that Netflix generally doesn't have trouble getting content to access providers' door steps, with several options for providers on how to receive that content that covers different traffic levels. In the same way as you don't owe them any special treatment, though, I don't see how they owe you (or any of us) special treatment either. But, like I said: I don't know the details of your business or the specifics of how this plays out for you, but I am eager to hear it. More information is helpful, and if we only ever hear from people with the same view/experience, we're not very likely to get the whole picture... -- Hugo On Mon 2014-Jul-14 17:45:56 -0600, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: >At 02:42 PM 7/14/2014, George Herbert wrote: > >>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: >>> >>> Brett's concerns seem to center around his >>> ability to be cost-competitive with the big >>> guys in his area...which implies there *are* >>> big guys in his area to have to compete with. >> >>He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. >>His key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop >>ranges from wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber >>into Laramie, and Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange >>pointlet . >> >>Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better >>transit is unclear. > >Why don't you simply ask me? There have been a huge number of >incorrect, mostly speculative assertions made about my business in >this thread, but I simply don't have time to correct all of them (I >have a business to run and customers to help). > >--Brett Glass > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140714/22cf432f/attachment.pgp> From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 03:10:27 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:10:27 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote: >And as long as they're happy with their single upstream >connectivity picture, more power to them. You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's not correct. ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Clever small ISPs find ways to work around that, and it makes them more competitive. --Brett Glass From mike.lyon at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 03:35:52 2014 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (Mike Lyon) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:35:52 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them anyways cuz u have no ASN? On Monday, July 14, 2014, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote: > > And as long as they're happy with their single upstream >> connectivity picture, more power to them. >> > > You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. > That's not correct. > > ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher > percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Clever > small ISPs find ways to work around that, and it makes them more > competitive. > > --Brett Glass > > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon at gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jul 15 03:40:39 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 03:40:39 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > ... > You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's not correct. > ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs, etc. Interesting use of the word "discriminatory", as it is usually used in the context of having different rates or fees for different categories of people or things... Used as you have, nearly everything (including equipment makers, conference fees, and the local coffee shop) all have "discriminatory" fees. Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on smaller service providers. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 03:51:49 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:51:49 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. --Brett Glass At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: >So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with >them anyways cuz u have no ASN? From mike.lyon at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 03:58:27 2014 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (Mike Lyon) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:58:27 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an ASN? -Mike On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, > as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't > require money to change hands.) > > ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an > ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a > dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the > resources used. > > But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't > require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP > address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of > any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static > route would work just fine. > > --Brett Glass > > > At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: > > So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them >> anyways cuz u have no ASN? >> > > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon at gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Tue Jul 15 04:05:17 2014 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:05:17 -0600 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21442.58380.73167.87541@world.std.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1bj=YjKP=9F6iOJ5J2u=tN7nq+Rycm_GczkS=1YuJBnXVTPQ@mail.gmail.com> <21442.58380.73167.87541@world.std.com> Message-ID: <20140715040517.GA17749@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > [...] > > And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. > I think I want this on a T-shirt. From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 04:05:21 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:05:21 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> Message-ID: <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote: >Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start with. >but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on >smaller service providers. If they were uniform, they would still have a bit of a disproportionate impact, but less so. If they were on a sliding scale, it might be fair. Remember: Our average profit is $5 per customer per month, and our customer base is limited by population. If I were in this business just for the business, I'd find a more profitable business, but I CARE about my community and accept a smaller return on my investment to help folks get connected. (This doesn't mean that I'm a charity, but it does mean I'll never get the profits or the ROI of a large, urban provider.) It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the Internet community at large. --Brett Glass From contact at winterei.se Tue Jul 15 04:07:34 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:07:34 +0900 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C4A906.2030407@winterei.se> On 7/15/2014 午後 12:51, Brett Glass wrote: > But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection > doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a > registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or > a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual > circuit) and a static route would work just fine. > > --Brett Glass > > At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: > >> So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with >> them anyways cuz u have no ASN? > Why would any content network (realistically) be interested in manually maintaining your prefixes in their routing table? BGP exists for a reason, you really should be using it. The fact that you don't have an ASN means that automatically creating said static routes based on data from some IRRd is likely more trouble than it's likely to be worth as well. From cgucker at onesc.net Tue Jul 15 04:08:56 2014 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:08:56 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CALB2hAcauYvFWmdpMjv4v3wTGR4_c68FNbWjw1zBPD4D_T5DrA@mail.gmail.com> > But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't > require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP > address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any > kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static > route would work just fine. Anybody else feel a vendor t-shirt in the works? "Who needs BGP to peer, a static route would work just fine!" Time to get back into the Hot Tub Time Machine and back on point. *hangs head in shame* From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 04:21:44 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:21:44 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> Mike: An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; content providers at the edge do not. Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. --Brett Glass At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: >So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure >Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be >more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. > >Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space,  >I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not >rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you >seriously if you don't have an ASN? > >-Mike From mike.lyon at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 04:25:11 2014 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (Mike Lyon) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:25:11 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAFFgAjCeHQNwm2oO2WspwXMoryd23ah7K+7yKFNXkjwTJeOHCg@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, I am so happy I now understand what an ASN and BGP are. I had no clue! Fuck it, we don't need BGP anywhere. Everyone go static! Back to the binge drinking now as I started when I first started reading this thread... -Mike On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Mike: > > An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and > primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking > and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or > robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP > addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) > would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my > customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I > absolutely do not want to do. > > Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone > routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me > anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. > > As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; > content providers at the edge do not. > > Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is > trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on > the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more > efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only > for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays > other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as > valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks > have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. > > --Brett Glass > > > At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: > > So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure >> Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than >> happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. >> >> Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space,  I am a >> smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science. >> How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an >> ASN? >> >> -Mike >> > > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon at gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon From cgucker at onesc.net Tue Jul 15 04:30:10 2014 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:30:10 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CALB2hAf5o2OZ+0=PNKTiZL-vr5Efv_+1Lny2Q4efQ=vKYM2gEw@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone > routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me > anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. Last comment on the thread. And the truth will set you free! Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be right in the world. As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their business, not yours. I will not respond further and we can let this thread finally die. - charles From marka at isc.org Tue Jul 15 04:44:27 2014 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:44:27 +1000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:21:44 -0600." <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <20140715044428.1532F1A4829C@rock.dv.isc.org> In message <201407150421.WAA26665 at mail.lariat.net>, Brett Glass writes: > Mike: > > An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very > awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant > babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still > doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining > this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no > different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a > large expense that would not produce any additional value for my > customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which > I absolutely do not want to do. > > Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some > backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) > aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a > good business move. > > As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs > do it; content providers at the edge do not. Bullshit. Lots of entities peer. Hell, I've peered over 9600 baud leased line slip connections back in 80's. Late 80's but still the 80's. The only requirement for peering is that you want to interconnect. I've also peered over fibre pulled between building on a campus. In all cases both entities bought and dedicated ports on their routers. Routes were exchanged and bits shipped back and forth. An ISP and a content provider can peer. Their common job is to ship bits to the ISP's customers. They are peers on that role. > Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It > is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none > of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of > content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in > which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same > amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, > after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused > to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken > down and we are looking at other solutions. > > --Brett Glass > > At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: > > >So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure > >Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be > >more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful. > > > >Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, � > >I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not > >rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you > >seriously if you don't have an ASN? > > > >-Mike > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 04:47:13 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:47:13 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CALB2hAf5o2OZ+0=PNKTiZL-vr5Efv_+1Lny2Q4efQ=vKYM2gEw@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CALB2hAf5o2OZ+0=PNKTiZL-vr5Efv_+1Lny2Q4efQ=vKYM2gEw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407150447.WAA26831@mail.lariat.net> Charles: Not trying to seize the last word here, but did want to make one final point. Just because I let each of my upstreams route for me does NOT mean I am single-homed; only that I handle multi-homing differently. There are commercial appliances available that do this, though I happen to have rolled my own so as to save money and obtain greater control. And, that being said, I'm happy to let the thread die because it's sort of an odd tangent. I see no reason why there should be any sort of "class distinction" between ISPs who undertake the messy business of doing BGP (I have the technical knowledge to do it, but no desire to add more to my plate) and those who choose to outsource that task and focus their efforts on the challenges of serving remote downstream customers. --Brett Glass At 10:30 PM 7/14/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: >Last comment on the thread. And the truth will set you free! >Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be >right in the world. As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are >subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old >routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their >business, not yours. I will not respond further and we can let >this thread finally die. > >- charles From nanog at studio442.com.au Tue Jul 15 05:18:51 2014 From: nanog at studio442.com.au (Julien Goodwin) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:51 +1000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140715003907.GF32153@hezmatt.org> References: <CAEmG1=pqhJKtK=sC0Yo2wHQR-5xJ_ZV55UhYR6uRex+Yitif2w@mail.gmail.com> <12742261.6140.1405347922580.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140715003907.GF32153@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <53C4B9BB.7050209@studio442.com.au> On 15/07/14 10:39, Matt Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> >> >>> It's now called "Any2 Denver": >>> >>> Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street >>> address for it anywhere among their literature. :( >> >> It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage. > > I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere? And a DELNI. From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 06:14:39 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 02:14:39 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaQ6gQXodFwdfF18+NR+xHmU7j+2j0VYXR7KTWEhBCYJA@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as > a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't > require money to change hands.) 'peering' here probably really means 'bgp peer', and it probably also means to be used in a 'mutually benefiting the two parties' way. which it seems it would be beneficial to use the pipe to pick up netflix traffic from the exchange switch, AND to pick up other peer networks' traffic at the same switch. This does mean you'd need to use an ASN and do BGP in a public sort of fashion though. You COULD just get a single link to netflix in DEN, but that seems dumb (or wasteful, or silly... or sub-optimal)... when there's a switch fabric to exploit in offloading some of your traffic and reducing hopcount between your customers and their interested content. > ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, > so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a dedicated > link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. ISP's peer to avoid costs, not all costs, but some costs. Hopefully the 'peering arrangement' is more beneficial than just straight transit between the two parties.... else you'd just use transit. -chris From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 15 06:24:03 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:24:03 +1000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote: > > >Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, > > Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much > larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start with. While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address argument: Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP $500 /22 0.49 $1000 /20 0.24 $2000 /18 0.12 $4000 /16 0.06 $8000 /14 0.03 $16000 /12 0.02 $32000 > /12 Mastercard! Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume purchases. I note that even LARIAT does this. You charge $60 for 1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps. Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps? > It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the > Internet community at large. I don't think human beings in general are wired that way. - Matt -- Politics and religion are just like software and hardware. They all suck, the documentation is provably incorrect, and all the vendors tell lies. -- Andrew Dalgleish, in the Monastery From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 15 06:52:31 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:52:31 +0900 Subject: provisioning (was: endless pissing about vz and netflux) In-Reply-To: <91CFC483-ABA9-41E6-9123-C97C85BE1575@puck.nether.net> References: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> <91CFC483-ABA9-41E6-9123-C97C85BE1575@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <m2k37ft8pc.wl%randy@psg.com> > I recall phoning AT&T once asking for 100m service at a commercial > address and it took a swat-team of people on the phone to tell me they > would be 4x/mo what I was paying.. I politely told them they were too > expensive and to not schedule a 8 person conference call for a basic > service level. i remember calling a very large telco to order a ds3 (yes, it was a while ago). they transferred me to engineering to see if they had capacity. engineering told me to hang on, and then i heard a lot of rustling of paper. i knew that even if i could get the circuit i would not want it. randy From bmanning at karoshi.com Tue Jul 15 11:11:17 2014 From: bmanning at karoshi.com (manning) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:11:17 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> regarding content, I’m not sure you and I live in the same media space, but I live in the same space as Springsteen who wrote "57 CHANNELS (AND NOTHIN' ON)” reports of TW in NYC having 2000 channels and nothing on are common. granted that major BB providers -own- a lot of content, but they certainly don’t allow for à la carte access - one must take the whole bundle. (blame the FCC) the promise of the Internet was that -anyone- could create and publish. that called for curation skills (assuming equal access to published content) such a system would have allowed for personally tailored content on a global scale. Instead, we have “eyeballs” that are encouraged to spend USD 4/per view of poorly digitized DVD copies of 30 year old movies and all the “Honey Boo Boo” you can handle. And be GRATEFUL for the privilege …. That real, quality content is out there, not part of the IP stable of corporate giants, is indisputable. As is the fact that it is effectively locked out of the Internet at large. (youtube was a grand, failed, experiment) /bill (who will return to his oubliette now) On 14July2014Monday, at 16:15, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both > - near-monopolies in their access areas > - content providers > > Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. > > Miles Fidelman > > Naslund, Steve wrote: >> Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of "doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. >> >> 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). >> 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. >> 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. >> 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. >> >> Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. >> >> I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said "Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. >> >> I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. >> >> Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to get on board would be huge. >> >> Steven Naslund >> Chicago IL >> >> > > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > From graham at airstripone.org.uk Tue Jul 15 12:17:29 2014 From: graham at airstripone.org.uk (Graham Donaldson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:17:29 +0100 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> Message-ID: <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote: > (youtube was > a grand, failed, experiment) > It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch Netflix, downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal amounts. My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. But this is all off topic I guess. Regards, Graham -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984 From rps at maine.edu Tue Jul 15 12:24:24 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:24:24 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> Message-ID: <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> > My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. Well that escalated quickly. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Graham Donaldson <graham at airstripone.org.uk > wrote: > On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote: > >> (youtube was >> a grand, failed, experiment) >> >> > It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch Netflix, > downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal amounts. > My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. > > But this is all off topic I guess. > > Regards, > > Graham > > -- > > "If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." > George Orwell, 1984 > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From graham at airstripone.org.uk Tue Jul 15 12:35:42 2014 From: graham at airstripone.org.uk (Graham Donaldson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:35:42 +0100 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5cb6a91ae1612767f14b3ed20ff787bc@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote: >> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. > > Well that escalated quickly. You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm wasn't intended for debate, especially when its so off topic. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984 From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 15 12:39:00 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:39:00 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxptD6Qk-D=9m0twuhfE8EjSDaFE7aW_q7mkEZqVDsOcw@mail.gmail.com> Matt, IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point of view a bit better. One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks. It does frequently confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and its even worse if they get connectivity from smaller providers, but it does effectively allow the ISP to have portable space without having an ASN. Frequently the smaller operators are happy to have a /23 of portable space so they can use that for their static IP customers and deal with the change of addressing for everyone else. Please note, this is not a money making operation for us. Its something we started doing in ~2003 to avoid having to constantly renumber networks and disrupt business accounts while allowing the ISPs to shop new bandwidth providers when they became available. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > > > Matt, > > > > While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP > > should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators > > around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for > > connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is > > nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all > 6 > > of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband > > subs. > > > > And as long as they're happy with their single upstream > connectivity picture, more power to them. > > But the minute they're less than happy with > their connectivity option, it would sure be > nice to have their own ASN and their own > IP space, so that going to a different upstream > provider would be possible. Heck, even just > having it as a *bargaining point* would be > useful. > > By not having it, they're essentially locking > the slave collar around their own neck, and > handing the leash to their upstream, along > with their wallet. As a freedom-of-choice > loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone > would subject their business to that level > of slavery. But I do acknowledge your > point, that for some category of people, > they are happy as clams with that > arrangement. > > > > > > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since > > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do > > with Internet access. > > > > Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship > in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive > ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does > having an ASN make you an ISP. > > Thanks! > > Matt > From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 12:49:07 2014 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:49:07 +0200 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> On 15 July 2014 06:21, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone > routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me > anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. > Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Regards, Baldur From ikiris at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 13:47:05 2014 From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:47:05 -0500 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <5cb6a91ae1612767f14b3ed20ff787bc@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <5cb6a91ae1612767f14b3ed20ff787bc@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> Message-ID: <CAJvB4tna7WOQt_cT1DL7Bn3xsogaBt+2Lms3c5Dgg6yESOb9+w@mail.gmail.com> Reality has a well-known liberal bias -Blake On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Graham Donaldson <graham at airstripone.org.uk> wrote: > On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote: >>> >>> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. >> >> >> Well that escalated quickly. > > > You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's > just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm > wasn't intended for debate, especially when its so off topic. > > Graham. > > > > -- > > “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George > Orwell, 1984 From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 14:07:54 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:07:54 -0400 Subject: Multi-Vendor Configuration Pusher In-Reply-To: <CAGWL9Q1KqBBDiFWAWCpvWPMR=5RC5gkZeha6nYuh6fMnio+9uw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGWL9Q1KqBBDiFWAWCpvWPMR=5RC5gkZeha6nYuh6fMnio+9uw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAL9jLabJrNRiSmrGLgNYyLw8i5nBiUe_qw7MCxHCmDqn-FgsYg@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Ryan Shea <ryanshea at google.com> wrote: > I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the > Apache 2.0 > license. Some of you may be interested. > > https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/ > (as a contributor and user externally of this code) excellent :) > This is an easily extensible framework on top of paramiko and pexpect in > Python for distributing configuration to (or running commands on) devices. > Currently we have the following vendor targets: > > * aruba > * brocade > * cisconx > * ciscoxr > * hp (procurve) > * ios > * junos > * generic ssh > > I have a thin wrapper around these vendor implementations which allows for > threaded pushes and a couple small operational conveniences, but would > appreciate any feedback <https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/issues/list> and > testing. Please treat this as you would any *new* code -- do not consider > it production quality. This project and Capirca > <https://code.google.com/p/capirca/> go together like beans and cornbread, > if you're into that sort of thing. > As noted ~4 yrs ago by Michael Shields (I think? maybe Tim Chung did the presentation at Nanog?) we use this internally, and externally (now). Having this available for management of devices is super helpful (to me). Thanks! -chris > Thanks, > Ryan From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 14:16:17 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:16:17 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaQ6gQXodFwdfF18+NR+xHmU7j+2j0VYXR7KTWEhBCYJA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAL9jLaaQ6gQXodFwdfF18+NR+xHmU7j+2j0VYXR7KTWEhBCYJA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB00@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> In common ISP language, peering is a connection between equals that is mutually beneficial so no money usually changes hands, peering connections are usually AS to AS without the ability to transit through to other AS (or at least some kind of policy that prevents you from using your peer for full transit. Transit is paid for bandwidth that "transits" through an AS to the Internet at large. I can use a paid for transit link to get to the entire Internet (hopefully). I agree that it appears that Netflix should be mostly an access or transit customer rather than a peering partner, however since high bandwidth to Netflix will make the ISPs customers happy, it is probably beneficial to come to some kind of agreement that helps you get the dedicated Netflix connection running. This is kind of the arrangement that exists with Akamai, where it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. I host their server which makes my customer happy, make Akamai's customer happy, and helps lower my costs by allowing me to minimize transit traffic. I don’t see why Netflix would be treated any different. If carriers don’t like the way Netflix servers work, then don’t put them in your network and deal with the bandwidth issues. It is a technical tradeoff whichever way you decide to go. Transit is paid for bandwidth that "transits" through an AS to the Internet at large. I have the right to send anything to anywhere on a transit circuit from say Comcast. Over a peering circuit, I should only be sending traffic bound for a Comcast customer or downstream provider. Steven Naslund Chicago IL From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 14:33:49 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:33:49 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFFgAjCeHQNwm2oO2WspwXMoryd23ah7K+7yKFNXkjwTJeOHCg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCeHQNwm2oO2WspwXMoryd23ah7K+7yKFNXkjwTJeOHCg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB43@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> If you are a multi-homed end user and you feel that a BGP configuration for that is a big management nightmare then you probably should not be running BGP. It would take me somewhere less than 15 minutes to set this up with two carriers and unless the carrier's are at drastically different tiers, there is no need to be doing a ton of "tweaking". I have run a bunch of networks like that and the workload of BGP was not even in my top 100 tasks. That "awkward and primitive" routing system has scaled pretty well and works well enough that there is not any widespread desire to change it. Sure we might change some things today (which we actually have over time, you know there are different BGP versions, right?), but if you can come up with a better system that is still in widespread use in 30 years, I will be impressed. Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses: If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump them, you will have to renumber. That is a big deal for anyone with a large internet facing presence and usually results in at least some downtime. Due to the way DNS works (cacheing), there is no really instantaneous way to change all the addressing on your publicly facing systems without incurring some interruption. You also could have your upstream provider get acquired or re-arrange their network whenever they feel necessary and you do not control your own destiny at all. It can also be complex announcing address space you received from one provider through another provider's network especially if those two providers change their peering arrangements between them. As a side benefit of having my own AS number, I can avoid or push traffic to certain carriers by changing my announcements. You can't do that without your own AS. Steven Naslund Chicago IL > Mike: > > An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward > and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and > tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the > security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a > bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what > I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any > additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their > fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. > > Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some > backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't > charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. > > As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do > it; content providers at the edge do not. > > Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is > trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it > on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more > efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked > only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as > it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be > just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's > why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. > > --Brett Glass > > From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 14:48:12 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:48:12 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB74@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> I am just guessing but you probably have not been in the service provider space. Peering in my experience has always required an ASN and BGP as a pre-requisite. That is because all service providers use BGP communities and various other mechanisms to control these connections. Sure you could do a point to point static routed circuit but do you really expect me to put in static routes for your network and then make sure I don’t announce them to the wrong places under my AS number? Oh, and I supposed I have to write ACLs for all of your netblocks to be certain that you don't use me for transit. Uhhhh, nope. Our networks are far to large and complex to manually manage like that. Just try to ask a provider to do that. When he stops laughing, let me know what he says. ISPs, by the way, peer in order to minimize the amount of transit they have to purchase (almost all ISPs smaller than a tier 1 have at least some paid transit) and to direct traffic off of congested links. If a direct connection to NetFlix saves me money on transit and helps my customers that is what I will do. The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of money. That is usually done by getting the traffic directly to an efficient exit point ASAP over the least expensive transport medium. Please don’t go on and on about what might work in theory regarding interconnection, a lot of the people on here are the ones that know how things work in reality. Reality is that no one will peer with you without an AS and your own space that goes with that. If you have not reached that level of sophistication, nobody is peering with you. Steven Naslund Chicago IL On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, > misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as > one that doesn't require money to change hands.) > > ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not > an ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing > a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for > the resources used. > > But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection > doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a > registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or > a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual > circuit) and a static route would work just fine. > > --Brett Glass From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 15:03:09 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:03:09 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAEE+rGqM0AvjpHhaLT35E2iv__cn-DAmC3joi_i7K8nPzMMjgw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAEE+rGqM0AvjpHhaLT35E2iv__cn-DAmC3joi_i7K8nPzMMjgw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFBCB@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Sorry to be cold about this but as high speed connectivity becomes more necessity than luxury, the market will still react. For example, I could move to the top of a mountain with no electric however most of us would not. If I was buying a home and I could not get decent high speed Internet, I would not live there because that is my business and I need it. If rural areas cannot get the kind of services they need from the carriers they have, they will have to react and break the monopoly. The economic model still works but is not as fast and efficient. There is always satellite which will all know if painful but it is an option so there is almost always not a real monopoly. Granted, if all I have to do is beat satellite, my bar is lower. You are right about becoming your own ISP. If you want to lose a lot of money in a hurry I would advise you to go to Las Vegas or become a facilities based small ISP. Steven Naslund Chicago IL >>>There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one provider. They have a guaranteed monopoly for the next few decades. They got a huge grant to put in FTTH from the government and they still have pricing from the last decade. >>>An 8/1 connection is $120/mo and require you to get dialtone (they say it's FCC mandated) to the tune of an additional $20/mo (that's with no long distance and every possible feature stripped). (Side-note: when the power fails during the winter, they turn off all internet access after 5 >>>minutes so they can save battery power for the phones--which travel the exact same fiber path as the interntet). >>>I'm not a huge fan of Comcast's recent actions, but if they rolled into the area with the same offer they have "in town" (100/25 for ~$75/mo), I would switch faster than you could spell monopoly. >>>There's plenty of fiber lying within 1/4 mile from my house (runs between Seattle and Portland), but none of the companies are interested in being a local ISP, or leasing to a non-business, and I couldn't afford to start my own, let alone trenching my own fiber to other residents who are >>>also fed up. >>>It doesn't matter to me what "the big players" do because as a consumer, I still don't have a choice. So while I find my local provider's practices utterly despicable, I can't exactly speak with my wallet unless I quit being an IT guy, cancel my internet, and start raising goats or something. >>>-A From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 14:58:49 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:58:49 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> Matt: Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. --Brett Glass At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote: >While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee >analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address >argument: > >Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP >$500 /22 0.49 >$1000 /20 0.24 >$2000 /18 0.12 >$4000 /16 0.06 >$8000 /14 0.03 >$16000 /12 0.02 >$32000 > /12 Mastercard! > >Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume >purchases. From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 15:03:34 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:03:34 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as >much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - >an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps >flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) --Brett Glass From me at geordish.org Tue Jul 15 15:12:55 2014 From: me at geordish.org (Dave Bell) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:12:55 +0100 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CACXVQYAUz6ZYsBKB+DjYF3Qtm3chnY+WvtB9uJVVW2sFeaixWQ@mail.gmail.com> On 15 July 2014 04:51, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as > a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't > require money to change hands.) In my book (As a network operator in the UK) Netflix's proposed arrangement is peering. They have traffic they need to get onto my network. I don't want to pay transit. They don't want to pay transit. I'm happily going to connect to them for free. Why should I charge them? My (our?) customer wants the data they are sending, so I need to find some way to get it to them. This is the most cost affective, deterministic, controllable way I have. > ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, > so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a dedicated > link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. They may not be an ISP in the traditional sense, ie you can't buy hosting, an access circuit etc from them, however they are a provider of a service that is accessible via the Internet. Dave From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 15:12:57 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:12:57 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB74@MUNPRDMBXA1.medli ne.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB74@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <201407151513.JAA01526@mail.lariat.net> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote: >The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least >amount of money. I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. --Brett Glass From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 15:18:38 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:38 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFC08@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> I can't believe that you actually believe that Brett. The reason the cost goes down as the number of IPs goes up is because these blocks are not managed address by address, they are managed as a single entity. ARIN has almost the same amount of labor and management involved whether it is a /24 or a /8. That is why there is economy of scale involved. The bigger block of course costs more because they are trying to get people to use the smallest space possible. Steven Naslund Chicago IL >>Matt: >>>Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! >>>Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get >>>disproportionate scrutiny. >>>--Brett Glass From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 15:19:47 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:19:47 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFC16@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move. Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get. Steven Naslund >>>Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both >>>- near-monopolies in their access areas >>>- content providers >>>Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. >>>Miles Fidelman From SNaslund at medline.com Tue Jul 15 15:22:11 2014 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:22:11 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151513.JAA01526@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB74@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <201407151513.JAA01526@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFD0B@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Which is their perfect right as a business. If their service starts sucking because of it, they will not be in business long. The end user will quickly figure out the Netflix sucks no matter who your Internet provider is and poof, they will be gone. Market forces at work. Steve >>The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount >>of money. >I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. >And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. >--Brett Glass From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 15:30:45 2014 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:30:45 +0200 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> On 15 July 2014 17:03, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > >Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as > >much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - > >an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps > >flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? > > Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I > am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do > better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) > If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? You would still pay for transport to your site. Or do you expect Netflix to also pay that? Together with Google for YouTube, Hulu for their share etc? It just does not work that way. I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) but none of your plans are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per stream for Super HD). I think you need to rethink a few things if you want to stay in business. I am sitting here on a 70 Mbps ADSL, Cable is often 100+ Mbps and my own ISP is selling 1000 Mbps service. Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas. I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to 40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ Regards, Baldur From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 15 15:37:52 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:37:52 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFC16@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFC16@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRzid+KT3kZkKSgL4hqEODFgASt5wAxcECaqL+L5gGepyA@mail.gmail.com> Steve, I'd question you're use of the word rural if this statement is accurate, "Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us." Perhaps you've just been lucky or your economics are different, but I can (off list) provide you with lots of locations in the US that neither of those operators, much less both, can reach. Perhaps more importantly the economics are such that one and only one tier 2 (sometimes tier 2/3) operator is available. I work with an ISP in west Texas who has been waiting on an AT&T build out for nearly 14 months to be able to buy bandwidth from anyone because there is no remaining capacity on the SONET network and no other operator has any physical facilities in the area. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote: > I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs > are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. > Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a > lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in > rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink > access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never > found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to > deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. > Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always > have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would > consider the broadband options available to them before they move. > > Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. > Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if > they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused > of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access > provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not > the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the > service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk > the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their > own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the > oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them > but they will take what they can get. > > Steven Naslund > > > > > >>>Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband > providers are both > >>>- near-monopolies in their access areas > >>>- content providers > > >>>Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. > > >>>Miles Fidelman > > From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jul 15 16:01:51 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:01:51 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <4D10D25F-2405-48A0-BFAA-969F67BF79F8@corp.arin.net> On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in > shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Actually, they're not even discrete numbers, but address blocks (If there were specific costs associated with administration of individual IP addresses, ARIN would have collapsed under the astronomical cost increase of receiving the allocation of 83,076,749,736,557,242,056,487,941,267,521,536 [/12] IPv6 addresses for this region...) Actual cost to administer, i.e. maintain in the database and ARIN systems, invoice each holder, provide reverse DNS, etc. is actually remarkably similar for ARIN regardless of address block size, e.g.whether it is IPv4 /8, /16, /20, /24 or an IPv6 /32 or /48. ARIN has consistently lowered ISP fees over the years (more than four times so far) but it is still worth revisiting, and there is a Fee Structure Review Report that will be forthcoming that looks at very approaches going forward. I will make sure to notify the NANOG community as well, as we want as many voices as possible in the discussion which will take place the latter half of this year. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From list at satchell.net Tue Jul 15 16:02:10 2014 From: list at satchell.net (list) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:02:10 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB43@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCeHQNwm2oO2WspwXMoryd23ah7K+7yKFNXkjwTJeOHCg@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB43@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <53C55082.1090909@satchell.net> On 07/15/2014 07:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses: > If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump > them, you will have to renumber. That is a big deal for anyone with > a large internet facing presence and usually results in at least some > downtime. Due to the way DNS works (cacheing), there is no really > instantaneous way to change all the addressing on your publicly > facing systems without incurring some interruption. You also could > have your upstream provider get acquired or re-arrange their network > whenever they feel necessary and you do not control your own destiny > at all. It can also be complex announcing address space you received > from one provider through another provider's network especially if > those two providers change their peering arrangements between them. OK, I used to work for a Web hosting company who (at the start of my tenure) did not have an ASN, and was not using BGP. Wasn't multi-homed, either. Every time they changed providers, they had to renumber. Now, this was a Linux house, very little Windows hosting, so the last time they renumbered from one upstream number space to another, I came up with a way to bridge the DNS update problem. 1) First step was to shorten the old times on DNS, about a month in advance of the changeover. 2) I had both upstreams on an overlap of two months. 3) I shifted all outgoing traffic to the new circuit, and DNS to the new numbers 4) In each of the Linux servers, I had both IP addresses configured. 5) In each box, the old address was then NATted to the new address. During the two-month transition period, my Web servers would answer to both addresses, and kept everything straight with NAT so that outgoing traffic exited the boxes using the same circuit. After two months, I took all the jerry-rigging out, and canceled the old circuit. Result: absolute minimum down-time for the Web sites, even for cable-based surfers. It was even easier when the hosting company got their own IP block and ASN. We just added the advertisements into the edge network, and did the same shuffle to our owned IP addresses. After a couple of months, we gave back the old addresses and stopped announcing them (by prearrangement with our legacy upstream, by the way.) Then we were home free and portable. Renumbering doesn't have to be a customer nightmare, if you plan carefully and use all the facilities you have at your disposal. And the earlier renumbering was done at the time that cable companies used to hold onto DNS caches FOREVER. Are those days over? I sure hope so. From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jul 15 16:45:49 2014 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:45:49 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407131954.NAA11092@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> <201407131954.NAA11092@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C55ABD.3000406@matthew.at> On 7/13/2014 12:54 PM, nanog at brettglass.com wrote: > > However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an > ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the > solution > is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the > streams in > encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate, > secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to > obtain > usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an > ISP-owned cache. Problem solved. Unless of course you've promised the content owner that you would be encrypting each delivery with a different key (because they'd been burned before by things like DVDs, which do not). Then not "problem solved" at all. You're also assuming that every customer is viewing the same bitrate/resolution/aspect ratio. With multi-bitrate streaming, there's often low overlap between the segments adjacent customers wish to load... even if the content is not encrypted, or is encrypted with the same DRM key for everyone. Of course, the facts of the situation don't appear to matter really... Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jul 15 16:50:30 2014 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:50:30 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C55BD6.9090401@matthew.at> If you're an ISP and you can't afford even the highest price per IP on that list, you have bigger problems than how much it costs to bring Netflix traffic to your customers. Matthew Kaufman On 7/15/2014 7:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote: > Matt: > > Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in > shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! > Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no > reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason > for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little > guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. > > --Brett Glass > > At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote: > >> While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee >> analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address >> argument: >> >> Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP >> $500 /22 0.49 >> $1000 /20 0.24 >> $2000 /18 0.12 >> $4000 /16 0.06 >> $8000 /14 0.03 >> $16000 /12 0.02 >> $32000 > /12 Mastercard! >> >> Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume >> purchases. From rubensk at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 17:04:04 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:04:04 -0300 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151513.JAA01526@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB74@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <201407151513.JAA01526@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k17L-zwf3v_EZiXR6FdQHzhj0uDzgeRU-k6qspt1JZTOA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote: > > The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of >> money. >> > > I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And > caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. BTW, with the move from HTTP to HTTPS due to privacy concerns, every cache efficiency you take for granted will be lost in a few years time... Rubens From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 15 17:11:51 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:11:51 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGX4GnWGdrtfuuS0JQ4w6zpqD0UaaVXKV_KXy34zCj4_yw@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote: > I think what will really drive everything is the > market forces. You either provide what your > end user wants or you go out of business. Hi Steve, Barrier to entry tends to negate "market forces." I dislike Verizon. Their FiOS service does not provide the technology I really want (e.g. delegated reverse DNS and a battery backup in the local vault that doesn't cut my voip via internet on power loss) and their customer support process is infuriating (It took me 5 hours of calls over 2 months to fix my login to a point where I could change the credit card used for payment.I just wanted to pay the damn bill.) And yet I buy their service. No one else is likely to bring fiber to my home and they categorically refuse to unbundle just the fiber part to any other business that might be willing to provide the service I actually want. Barrier to entry, typically in the form of sunk infrastructure, cross-subsidy and/or regulatory shenanigans, tends to fully negate the effect of other market forces. You don't have to give the customer what they want. You just have to make sure it is impractical for anyone else to sell them something better. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 17:28:40 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:28:40 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again, I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming service that is more ISP-friendly. >I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use >the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) We don't "use" their brand, but do mention them as an example of a company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are attempting to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, which is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the amount per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are higher. >but none of your plans >are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per >stream for Super HD). Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves say.) >Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas. Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has also failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth carefully. We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a choice of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's algorithm, a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly. So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good experience. Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed speeds. We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But Netflix doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste. >I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and >then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to >40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark fiber in our area. >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. Most of our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our options; we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave links throughout our network. Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout my entire life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more. --Brett Glass From rubensk at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 17:40:11 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:40:11 -0300 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.gmail.com> > > >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul > >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ > > That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. > Most of > our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our > options; > we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave > links > throughout our network. > > Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. Rubens From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 15 17:43:27 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:43:27 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRyGo2niftMQYWKmdusZygVxjdy986SahB-PL-9u01EoRQ@mail.gmail.com> Brett, You should investigate TVWS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) it works extremely well in your kind of scenario and at a minimum will solve your over the air data rate challenges. The release of TVWS has provided WISPs in rural areas with almost 1 GHz of unlicensed space and it goes much further than the other unlicensed bands like ISM and UNII. Technically the same amount of frequency was released for everyone, but in urban/suburban markets much more is already taken by licensed over the air TV broadcasters and wireless microphones, both as licensed users have absolute rights to the frequencies they're using. If you want to know vendors that supply the gear, since most of the BWA guys haven't grabbed it yet, let me know and I'll send what I have off list. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > >If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? > > It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again, > I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high > backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that > Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this > is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting > pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to > solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for > workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming > service that is more ISP-friendly. > > >I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use > >the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) > > We don't "use" their brand, but do mention them as an example of a > company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and > Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have > such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are > attempting > to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, > which > is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as > valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the > amount > per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are > higher. > > >but none of your plans > >are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per > >stream for Super HD). > > Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether > that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves > say.) > > >Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in > rural areas. > > Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing > about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price > gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has > also > failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide > much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth > carefully. > We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a > choice > of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied > with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's > algorithm, > a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for > each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly. > So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good > experience. > Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed > speeds. > > We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But > Netflix > doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their > customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste. > > >I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and > >then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to > >40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. > > Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark > fiber > in our area. > > >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul > >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ > > That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. > Most of > our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our > options; > we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave > links > throughout our network. > > Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout > my entire > life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more. > > --Brett Glass > > From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 18:08:19 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:08:19 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407151809.MAA04588@mail.lariat.net> At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned >AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high capacity point-to-point links. --Brett Glass From rubensk at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 18:18:11 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:11 -0300 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151809.MAA04588@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151809.MAA04588@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k07mpXax=F-i=Oxv76QVigxMM5bHie6at3dKTZ3226rQA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned >> AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. >> > > Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we > rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not > meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band > is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a > radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some > miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so > much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment > for high capacity point-to-point links. If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call, what people are pointing is that there are low-cost alternatives for low-density networks. If those exceed your requirements, you move up the food chain to better and more expensive gear, but then you have more subscribers and more revenue to pay for those. Rubens From bzs at world.std.com Tue Jul 15 18:19:45 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:19:45 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> Re: Net Neutrality In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content provider -- have failed. For example, AOL, Prodigy, various "portals", MSN, Netscape, on and on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point stands. To a great extent "net neutrality" (or non-neutrality) is yet another attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large. This doesn't prove it won't work but the track record viewed this way is bad: 100% failure rate to date. Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isn't one of the choices. But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth? Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long. Note: I'm using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all possible throughput parameters. For example if the norm "have-not" bandwidth were 100mb/s but the "have" bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those services in general don't even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny? Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing news.google.com at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I don't. And if have-not-bw was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., there's always a new horizon, or will be for a while. So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist as a business force in a bw-poor world. Right now the business model of concern is video streaming. But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue? That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s? There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. 56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s is luxurious for that application, you couldn't gain a business advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads. There's simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate. The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes around it. to paraphrase John Gilmore's famous observation on censorship. P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) "cloud" backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, do the math. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 18:59:38 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:59:38 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k07mpXax=F-i=Oxv76QVigxMM5bHie6at3dKTZ3226rQA@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151809.MAA04588@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k07mpXax=F-i=Oxv76QVigxMM5bHie6at3dKTZ3226rQA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407151859.MAA07123@mail.lariat.net> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, >that's your call, We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money. Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad neighbor. After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons. --Brett Glass From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 19:08:58 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> Message-ID: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. Very true. And there's another factor to consider. Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? --Brett From ikiris at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 19:09:57 2014 From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:09:57 -0500 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151859.MAA07123@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151809.MAA04588@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k07mpXax=F-i=Oxv76QVigxMM5bHie6at3dKTZ3226rQA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151859.MAA07123@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAJvB4t=tiMu6u+MzoUs9TmRw=Qs_Q9=PnsNyEs82vbA=CVsxRA@mail.gmail.com> This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge sets. -Blake On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > >> If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, >> that's your call, > > > We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've > mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality > is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed > does not actually save money. > > Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad > neighbor. > > After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what > is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive > lessons. > > --Brett Glass > From rubensk at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 19:15:10 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:15:10 -0300 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151859.MAA07123@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WVBZ_8Us+gXo8Gshm0_C4k0so602YpYxKkVGBBBP9kA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151809.MAA04588@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k07mpXax=F-i=Oxv76QVigxMM5bHie6at3dKTZ3226rQA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151859.MAA07123@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k1W1=3PDYCbx2Qie8FW+qpbFCfKg=yA-Z4aPsOdaSmgUA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, >> that's your call, >> > > We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've > mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality > is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed > does not actually save money. > > Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad > neighbor. > Actually not, it has a better bps/Hz figure than other unlicensed radios with comparable bandwidth like 802.11ac. What you are referring to is that using the same channel for back-haul and for serving users is usually a problem, but besides some vertical and horizontal separation techniques that could be used, there is always the option of using 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz for POP-to-user communication if back-haul is needing that frequency. If reliability is more important than bandwidth, than reducing modulation to decrease data-rate but increasing reliability is an option with both AirFiber and other 802.11 unlicensed gear. > > After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what > is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive > lessons. Yes, but not mentioning the choices makes you sound like you are trying to prove a point instead of actually discussing the technical possibilities. I was in charge of engineering for a WISP for some years and still have many contacts with local WISPs, in a country(Brazil) that pretty much resembles your technical and market challenges... think you have a problem with rain fade ? US ITU-R rain zone regions seem like blue sky for us. (http://www.racom.eu/images/radost/images/hw/ray/rain_zone_h.png) Rubens From dougb at dougbarton.us Tue Jul 15 19:24:08 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:24:08 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> On 07/15/2014 12:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: > >> There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which >> it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. > > Very true. And there's another factor to consider. > > Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, > range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and > about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to > accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that > additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose > of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to > redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? Just off the top of my head .... More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows. Watch a show, while downloading something else in the background. Downloading something, while uploading backups. etc. etc. This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult. You need to deal with that reality, not complain that it exists. Doug From stenn at ntp.org Tue Jul 15 19:28:00 2014 From: stenn at ntp.org (Harlan Stenn) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:28:00 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <E1X78OO-0009CI-HV@stenn.ntp.org> Brett Glass writes: > At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: > > >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which > >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. > > Very true. And there's another factor to consider. > > Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, > range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and > about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to > accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that > additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose > of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to > redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? For single-person households, nefarious things. For households (or small businesses) things change. And while most folks will not need those uplink speeds, for others it can be real useful. And yes, there is room for abuse. H From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 19:59:22 2014 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:59:22 +0200 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7CpapAD-_2FUAg7oir4GwZoJGAOWRb04dFS4ph4omG2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407151731.LAA03343@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAPkb-7C+e0+6gA6N22d6Kp1yvnmgzc6tu8dxWz5beftn+q+LxQ@mail.gmail.com> Brett, you are missing my point. I am no expert on wireless links and the equipment I pointed at might be garbage. But you have a backhaul problem that you need to solve. If not that equipment, then something else. You are balking up the wrong tree with Netflix. People want high bandwidth video and an ISP need to be able to provide that. Caching could not solve your problem, not even close. Netflix might function at .5 Mbps but that would be their poor quality setting. People do not want that. They want the Super HD version of the video. The 6 Mbps version. And this is just now, later on they are going to want the 4k version of the video. Netflix is not a monopoly. They are just one player out of many. You can not expect someone else to solve your backhaul problem. Neither Netflix, YouTube nor Hulu are charities. They do not really care if your customers leave you to a competitor, to get the wanted bandwidth. And neither should they. You hate the fact that the world is moving to high bandwidth video. We on the other hand love it. We sell FTTH and it is a selling point for our technology over, say, wireless internet. We want Netflix to move on to even higher bandwidth streams. I can not see how you can stay in the game if you do not adapt. From everything said here it appears your main problem is that backhaul, so find a solution. The solution will not come from bashing the video services and it will not come from starting up your own service. Even if you by some miracle made a good service, people would STILL want Netflix, HBO, Hulu, YouTube and many others. Nobody can expect to get a monopoly, not even you. Caching, were it possible, is not that effective. Say it could save 50% of the traffic (unlikely) you would still be paying effectively $10 per Mbps and you would still go broke. You simply can not be paying that much for traffic in a marked, where everyone else is paying $0.5/Mbps. Regards, Baldur From william.allen.simpson at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 20:02:51 2014 From: william.allen.simpson at gmail.com (William Allen Simpson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:02:51 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality FCC COMMENTS OF THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION Message-ID: <53C588EB.3070304@gmail.com> http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Comments.pdf Really good, for those of us with the patience to ponder it. I tried writing my own FCC response, and was flummoxed by the difficulty. Official comment period ends today. From lear at cisco.com Tue Jul 15 20:13:38 2014 From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:13:38 +0200 Subject: Net Neutrality FCC COMMENTS OF THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION In-Reply-To: <53C588EB.3070304@gmail.com> References: <53C588EB.3070304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C58B72.4030609@cisco.com> If you want to join the millions of comments, apparently the deadline has been extended to midnight, July 18th.[1] Eliot [1] http://online.wsj.com/articles/fcc-extends-comment-period-for-net-neutrality-1405449739 On 7/15/14, 10:02 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote: > http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Comments.pdf > > Really good, for those of us with the patience to ponder it. I tried > writing my own FCC response, and was flummoxed by the difficulty. > > Official comment period ends today. > > From joly at punkcast.com Tue Jul 15 20:16:19 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:16:19 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2Cue5ujquo60bDtnAUbLw+qjTdr7AWuds0HpKeiNLChQ@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > > Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, > range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and > about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to > accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that > additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose > of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to > redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? > > --Brett > > That is per household, not per person. And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth for a robust streaming connection. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 20:42:46 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:42:46 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote: >Just off the top of my head .... > >More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows. How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different programming, at any time? (We can do that, but it will cost more.) >This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I >and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several >of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers >are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that >makes your life more difficult. Having customers use the service I sell them does not make my life more difficult. I state very clearly what they are paying for: a certain guaranteed minimum capacity, to a certain point on the Internet backbone, with a certain maximum duty cycle. I can (and often do) take spot measurements of the amount of capacity they are using, tell them how much they are using, and verify that they are getting what they pay for. If they want more, they can always purchase it. The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following: * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose; * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings. If I quit the business, it won't be because I don't care about my customers or love what I do. It'll be because government and corporations have put so many roadblocks in my way that I can no longer deliver. --Brett Glass From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 20:48:19 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:48:19 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk2Cue5ujquo60bDtnAUbLw+qjTdr7AWuds0HpKeiNLChQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <CAM9VJk2Cue5ujquo60bDtnAUbLw+qjTdr7AWuds0HpKeiNLChQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407152048.OAA12661@mail.lariat.net> At 02:16 PM 7/15/2014, Joly MacFie wrote: >And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth for a robust streaming connection. This is only true if the connection is of poor quality and dropped packets lead to regular 50% cuts in the data rate. Most users (and the FCC!) do not understand that, due to the Van Jacobson AIMD algorithm, quality matters far more than quantity when a service is delivered via TCP. --Brett Glass From dougb at dougbarton.us Tue Jul 15 21:20:06 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:20:06 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <53C59B06.1040707@dougbarton.us> Brett, You've more or less accurately described the reality of the situation. Please feel free to proceed with the "dealing with it" suggestion that I also made as part of the post you responded to. :) Good luck, Doug On 07/15/2014 01:42 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote: > >> Just off the top of my head .... >> >> More than one person in a location, and they are watching different >> shows. > > How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be able > to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different > programming, at any time? (We can do that, but it will cost more.) > >> This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and >> others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which >> have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the >> service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life >> more difficult. > > Having customers use the service I sell them does not make my life more > difficult. I state very clearly what they are paying for: a certain > guaranteed minimum capacity, to a certain point on the Internet > backbone, with a certain maximum duty cycle. I can (and often do) take > spot measurements of the amount of capacity they are using, tell them > how much they are using, and verify that they are getting what they pay > for. If they want more, they can always purchase it. > > The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the > following: > > * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then > denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; > > * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than > allowing them to choose; > > * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the > government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and > > * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for > their own failings. > > If I quit the business, it won't be because I don't care about my > customers or love what I do. It'll be because government and > corporations have put so many roadblocks in my way that I can no longer > deliver. > > --Brett Glass > From prdpvaghela at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 10:36:19 2014 From: prdpvaghela at gmail.com (pradip vaghela) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:06:19 +0530 Subject: Network infrastructure issue for Siebel CRM Message-ID: <CAB3nki4nbeSJp0WUpwiOD3aFtRAA4oWeaiZVHNT6jLkKNKNc-g@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, Anybody has idea about probable issue in Network infrastructure for siebel application performance and availability issue. What are the checks to be perform in network devices for network confirmation. Regards, Pradip Vaghela +91-9320064180 From rubensk at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 23:06:28 2014 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:06:28 -0300 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> > > > The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the > following: > > * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then > denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; > > * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than > allowing them to choose; > > * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government > so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and > > * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their > own failings. > Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? Rubens From george.herbert at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 23:10:50 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:10:50 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> > On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > > At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > >> Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as >> much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - >> an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps >> flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? > > Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I > am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do > better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) > > --Brett Glass > Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south. What conversations have you had with them?... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From nanog at brettglass.com Tue Jul 15 23:57:08 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:57:08 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.g mail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, >as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass From nanog at brettglass.com Wed Jul 16 00:02:48 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:02:48 -0600 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote: >Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly >south. What conversations have you had with them?... At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits on rented land). --Brett Glass From fkittred at gwi.net Wed Jul 16 01:28:01 2014 From: fkittred at gwi.net (Fletcher Kittredge) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:28:01 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, >> as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? >> > > It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. > The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications > Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a > telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, > requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to > report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification > that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to > this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. > > The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will > fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see > > http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order > > As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to > overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already > have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if > they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any > service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires > participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that > they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. > > All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those > whom they cannot regulate. > > IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. > > --Brett Glass > > > > -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134 From george.herbert at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 01:48:31 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:48:31 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <37C5AE02-85A7-4DDC-ABF6-A7C3ABC5B780@gmail.com> > On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > > At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote: > >> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south. What conversations have you had with them?... > > At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits on rented land). > > --Brett Glass > Local fiber provider? How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in Laramie? And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem. There are a bunch. I can recommend one privately if you can't find one. Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only does not scale. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Jul 16 01:53:01 2014 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:53:01 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO > I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with > everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of > becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving > rural > ISPs a bad reputation. > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > >> At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> >> Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service >> Fund, >>> as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? >>> >> >> It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. >> The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications >> Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a >> telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, >> requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to >> report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a >> classification >> that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves >> to >> this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. >> >> The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will >> fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see >> >> http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order >> >> As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to >> overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already >> have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, >> if >> they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any >> service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires >> participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that >> they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. >> >> All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those >> whom they cannot regulate. >> >> IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. >> >> --Brett Glass >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Fletcher Kittredge > GWI > 8 Pomerleau Street > Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 > 207-602-1134 > From nanog at brettglass.com Wed Jul 16 02:01:39 2014 From: nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:01:39 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Message-ID: <201407160201.UAA16070@mail.lariat.net> I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) --Brett Glass At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: >I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is >riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for >internet services...pretty much just for LECs. >Thank You >Bob Evans >CTO From keefe-af at ethoplex.com Wed Jul 16 01:56:45 2014 From: keefe-af at ethoplex.com (Keefe John) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:56:45 -0500 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Message-ID: <53C5DBDD.1070905@ethoplex.com> Any ISP can tap into Erate funding. We are a WISP and lots of our school customers get Erate funding/discounts. On 7/15/2014 8:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote: > I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is > riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for > internet services...pretty much just for LECs. > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO > > > > >> I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with >> everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of >> becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving >> rural >> ISPs a bad reputation. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: >> >>> At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >>> >>> Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service >>> Fund, >>>> as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? >>>> >>> It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. >>> The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications >>> Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a >>> telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, >>> requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to >>> report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a >>> classification >>> that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves >>> to >>> this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. >>> >>> The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will >>> fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see >>> >>> http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order >>> >>> As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to >>> overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already >>> have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, >>> if >>> they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any >>> service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires >>> participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that >>> they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. >>> >>> All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those >>> whom they cannot regulate. >>> >>> IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. >>> >>> --Brett Glass >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Fletcher Kittredge >> GWI >> 8 Pomerleau Street >> Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 >> 207-602-1134 >> > From jra at baylink.com Wed Jul 16 03:04:59 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <2979250.6298.1405479899694.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brett Glass" <nanog at brettglass.com> > Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, > range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and > about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to > accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that > additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose > of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to > redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? That they understand that more than one person lives in a house. "Spying on us"? <plonk> Cheers, -- jr 'I retract the apology' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Jul 16 03:28:22 2014 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:28:22 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407160201.UAA16070@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <201407160201.UAA16070@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <fd36021c5eee85f82a01f9df661a84f6.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Oh I agree Brett. My point was for flecher. We lost business once the government school discount happened. Its an example to what you speak of....all the time red tape overhead designed to give to LEcs business. And one of my companies is a CLEC. Thank You Bob Evans CTO > I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take > to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd > need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned > telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically > support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get > inexpensive > telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) > > --Brett Glass > > At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: > >>I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is >>riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for >>internet services...pretty much just for LECs. >>Thank You >>Bob Evans >>CTO > > From gdendy at equinix.com Wed Jul 16 04:32:04 2014 From: gdendy at equinix.com (Greg Dendy) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:32:04 -0700 Subject: NANOG 62 - Baltimore - Call For Presentations is Open! In-Reply-To: <180F02C2-7158-4843-A43D-4CF7AA941A20@equinix.com> References: <180F02C2-7158-4843-A43D-4CF7AA941A20@equinix.com> Message-ID: <7B5E480D-AC08-49FD-A167-7F2098A358D2@equinix.com> The presentation submission period for NANOG 62 is still open, although the deadline is fast approaching. It's not too late to join what's shaping up to be a great program! Thanks, Greg -- Greg Dendy Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) On Jun 16, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Greg Dendy <gdendy at equinix.com<mailto:gdendy at equinix.com>> wrote: NANOG Community- Thanks for helping to make NANOG 61 in Bellevue such a smashing success as the most attended meeting ever, on the 20th anniversary of the first meeting! NANOG will hold its 62nd meeting in Baltimore, MD on October 6-8, 2014, hosted by EdgeConneX. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 62 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: * Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: August 4, 2014 * Topic List Posted: August 18, 2014 * Slides Due: September 1, 2014 * Agenda Published: September 15, 2014 NANOG 62 submissions are welcome on the P<http://pc.nanog.org/>rogram Committee Site<http://pc.nanog.org/> or email me if you have questions. Looking forward to seeing everyone in Baltimore! Thanks, Greg Dendy Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) From ryan at finnesey.com Wed Jul 16 05:06:43 2014 From: ryan at finnesey.com (Ryan Finnesey) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:06:43 +0000 Subject: VZW - fixed wireless services? Message-ID: <1e18db087b5c45f9ab290bb2f74fee41@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. Cheers Ryan From mike.lyon at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 05:11:32 2014 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (Mike Lyon) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:11:32 -0700 Subject: VZW - fixed wireless services? In-Reply-To: <1e18db087b5c45f9ab290bb2f74fee41@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <1e18db087b5c45f9ab290bb2f74fee41@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <CAFFgAjA06PYyFKhF-UHXssv3gHmHBGUQeDwZ2Cz8qD_gurgh4Q@mail.gmail.com> Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey <ryan at finnesey.com> wrote: > Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed > wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco > but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. > > Cheers > Ryan > > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon at gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon From ryan at finnesey.com Wed Jul 16 05:13:44 2014 From: ryan at finnesey.com (Ryan Finnesey) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:13:44 +0000 Subject: VZW - fixed wireless services? In-Reply-To: <CAFFgAjA06PYyFKhF-UHXssv3gHmHBGUQeDwZ2Cz8qD_gurgh4Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <1e18db087b5c45f9ab290bb2f74fee41@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFFgAjA06PYyFKhF-UHXssv3gHmHBGUQeDwZ2Cz8qD_gurgh4Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <a8ddfa05208b4cf397e9353ad9c9a91a@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Do you happen to know the rates or where I can find more information on the offering? From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.lyon at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:12 AM To: Ryan Finnesey Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: VZW - fixed wireless services? Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey <ryan at finnesey.com<mailto:ryan at finnesey.com>> wrote: Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. Cheers Ryan -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon at gmail.com<mailto:mike.lyon at gmail.com> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon From mike.lyon at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 05:16:57 2014 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (Mike Lyon) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:16:57 -0700 Subject: VZW - fixed wireless services? In-Reply-To: <a8ddfa05208b4cf397e9353ad9c9a91a@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <1e18db087b5c45f9ab290bb2f74fee41@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFFgAjA06PYyFKhF-UHXssv3gHmHBGUQeDwZ2Cz8qD_gurgh4Q@mail.gmail.com> <a8ddfa05208b4cf397e9353ad9c9a91a@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <CAFFgAjBaGcxxwEfdOmL6a5LnVeHrMtMtic1JqX5ehhF6j_=x-Q@mail.gmail.com> I believe they just attach it as a regular data device on whatever data plan you pick. It's known as Verizon HomeFusion: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/homefusion/hf/main.do -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Finnesey <ryan at finnesey.com> wrote: > Do you happen to know the rates or where I can find more information on > the offering? > > > > *From:* Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.lyon at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:12 AM > *To:* Ryan Finnesey > *Cc:* nanog at nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: VZW - fixed wireless services? > > > > Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey <ryan at finnesey.com> wrote: > > Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed > wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco > but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. > > Cheers > Ryan > > > > > > -- > > Mike Lyon > > 408-621-4826 > > mike.lyon at gmail.com > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon > > > > > > > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon at gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 08:05:43 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 01:05:43 -0700 Subject: BGP Session Message-ID: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> Hi, So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to set those up or which one I would need. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Wed Jul 16 08:12:48 2014 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:12:48 +0200 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140716081248.GA22708@nic.fr> I love the From: field :-) From bmanning at isi.edu Wed Jul 16 08:30:28 2014 From: bmanning at isi.edu (manning bill) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 01:30:28 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <20140716081248.GA22708@nic.fr> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140716081248.GA22708@nic.fr> Message-ID: <B7B71C45-CCBC-46FC-A4A7-B70AEB903226@isi.edu> whats not to love… its DKIM’d & everything /bill Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. On 16July2014Wednesday, at 1:12, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr> wrote: > I love the From: field :-) > From lists.nanog at monmotha.net Wed Jul 16 08:33:43 2014 From: lists.nanog at monmotha.net (Brandon Martin) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 04:33:43 -0400 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C638E7.20906@monmotha.net> On 07/16/2014 04:05 AM, Abuse Contact wrote: > Hi, > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to > set those up or which one I would need. Just ask your hosting provider to announce it for you and route it from their border to your box? -- Brandon Martin From graham at airstripone.org.uk Wed Jul 16 09:13:54 2014 From: graham at airstripone.org.uk (Graham Donaldson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:13:54 +0100 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <2979250.6298.1405479899694.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <2979250.6298.1405479899694.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <366a74c6e3fc203965fa40a0fb8c7001@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> On 2014-07-16 04:04, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brett Glass" <nanog at brettglass.com> > >> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, >> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and >> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to >> accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means >> that >> additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the >> purpose >> of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to >> redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? > > That they understand that more than one person lives in a house. > > "Spying on us"? > Presumably he means Internet of Things, and Snowden et. al. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984 From fkittred at gwi.net Wed Jul 16 11:03:22 2014 From: fkittred at gwi.net (Fletcher Kittredge) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:03:22 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407160201.UAA16070@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <201407160201.UAA16070@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <CABa+6OBS1vJ7bYLeU-z1QYYnk9VDnqGHNMEVnGR+xbptNAneTg@mail.gmail.com> Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please read carefully. *2.* We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage participation in the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including competitive local exchange carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs, State and regional authorities, Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49 We were encouraged to see the diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties. Of the more than 1,000 expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not currently ETCs, including electric utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments. *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they initially submit their formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but that they must obtain ETC designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award. As stated in the Tech Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90 days of the public notice announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe will be considered in default and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural broadband experiment. Any funding that is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other applicants. We conclude this is necessary so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner. However, a waiver of this deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith to obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day timeframe.[52] *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a presumption that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application. Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section 214(e)(6).55 Although we are confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance broadband, and we expect states to expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest in providing voice and broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also recognize the need to adopt measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in situations where there is a lack of action by the state. ====== 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit their ETC applications to the relevant jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice announcing winning bids, and will presume an entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15 days of release of the public notice. A waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an entity has an ETC application pending with a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC application will occur after the 90-day window. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take > to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd > need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned > telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically > support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get > inexpensive > telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) > > --Brett Glass > > > At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: > > I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is >> riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for >> internet services...pretty much just for LECs. >> Thank You >> Bob Evans >> CTO >> > > -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134 From khelms at zcorum.com Wed Jul 16 12:20:23 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxihTK46VGDbyMYkNJ82yb0tOcadtwOqgEsaFTTEWDUBQ@mail.gmail.com> Here is the actual document for defining what the federal government considers to be an ETC. Keep in mind that state level boards actually make the designation based on these, and potentially state level regulations, so there is some variation based on the state(s) you operate in. Having said, that the requirements have not seemed overly onerous to us where we have considered them, which certainly isn't all 50 states. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-46A1.pdf "20. As described above, ETC applicants must meet statutorily prescribed requirements before we can approve their designation as an ETC.46 Based on the record before us, we find that an ETC applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability to provide services, including providing service to all customers within its proposed service area; (2) how it will remain functional in emergency situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality standards; (4) that it offers local usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an understanding that it may be required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.47 As noted above, these requirements are mandatory for all ETCs designated by the Commission. ETCs designated by the Commission prior to this Report and Order will be required to make such showings when they submit their annual certification filing on October 1, 2006. We also encourage state commissions to apply these requirements to all ETC applicants over which they exercise jurisdiction. We do not believe that different ETCs should be subject to different obligations, going forward, because of when they happened to first obtain ETC designation from the Commission or the state. These are responsibilities associated with receiving universal service support that apply to all ETCs, regardless of the date of initial designation." Its also worth noting that you do _not_ have to offer voice or life line services according the federal guidelines. "3947 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A). The services that are supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms are: (1) voice grade access to the public switched network; (2) local usage; (3) Dual Tone Multifrequency (DTMF) signaling or its functional equivalent; (4) single-party service or its functional equivalent; (5) access to emergency services, including 911 and enhanced 911; (6) access to operator services; (7) access to interexchange services; (8) access to directory assistance; and (9) toll limitation for qualifying low-income customers. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.101. While section 214(e)(1) requires an ETC to “offer” the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms, the Commission has determined that this does not require a competitive carrier to actually provide the supported services throughout the designated service area before designation as an ETC. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 15168, 15172-75, paras. 10- 18 (2000), recon. pending (Section 214(e) Declaratory Ruling)." That was once a requirement that kept most WISPs from being able to participate, but is no longer. I don't personally see a large hurdle for WISPs in the federal language and I work with 4 I know of that have ETC status in 3 different states. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans <bob at fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote: > I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is > riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for > internet services...pretty much just for LECs. > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO > > > > > > I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with > > everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of > > becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving > > rural > > ISPs a bad reputation. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> > wrote: > > > >> At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > >> > >> Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service > >> Fund, > >>> as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? > >>> > >> > >> It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. > >> The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications > >> Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a > >> telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, > >> requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to > >> report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a > >> classification > >> that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves > >> to > >> this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. > >> > >> The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will > >> fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see > >> > >> http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order > >> > >> As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to > >> overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already > >> have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, > >> if > >> they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any > >> service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires > >> participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that > >> they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. > >> > >> All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those > >> whom they cannot regulate. > >> > >> IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. > >> > >> --Brett Glass > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Fletcher Kittredge > > GWI > > 8 Pomerleau Street > > Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 > > 207-602-1134 > > > > > From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Jul 16 13:44:21 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:44:21 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxihTK46VGDbyMYkNJ82yb0tOcadtwOqgEsaFTTEWDUBQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <CAMrdfRxihTK46VGDbyMYkNJ82yb0tOcadtwOqgEsaFTTEWDUBQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C681B5.50307@meetinghouse.net> ETCs aside for a moment, the NTIA used to give out an awful lot of money for rural electrification, then for telecom - a lot of it going to small players, coops, and municipalities. A Probably still does - though I haven't followed the program in recent years. Yes, writing and selling a grant proposal can be tedious, but then again, so is a venture capital proposal, or dealing with banks. Or, for that matter, selling to large customers public or private. Miles Fidelman On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans <bob at fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote: >> I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is >> riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for >> internet services...pretty much just for LECs. >> Thank You >> Bob Evans >> CTO >> >> >> >> >>> I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with >>> everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of >>> becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving >>> rural >>> ISPs a bad reputation. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> >> wrote: >>>> At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >>>> >>>> Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service >>>> Fund, >>>>> as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? >>>>> >>>> It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. >>>> The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications >>>> Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a >>>> telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, >>>> requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to >>>> report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a >>>> classification >>>> that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves >>>> to >>>> this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. >>>> >>>> The FCC just announced a "rural broadband experiment" in which it will >>>> fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see >>>> >>>> http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order >>>> >>>> As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to >>>> overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already >>>> have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, >>>> if >>>> they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any >>>> service we provide does not count. The "experiment" also requires >>>> participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that >>>> they can obtain "letters of credit" guaranteeing performance. >>>> >>>> All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those >>>> whom they cannot regulate. >>>> >>>> IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. >>>> >>>> --Brett Glass >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fletcher Kittredge >>> GWI >>> 8 Pomerleau Street >>> Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 >>> 207-602-1134 >>> >> >> -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Jul 16 14:31:16 2014 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:31:16 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CABa+6OBS1vJ7bYLeU-z1QYYnk9VDnqGHNMEVnGR+xbptNAneTg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <53C57FD8.8090202@dougbarton.us> <201407152042.OAA12403@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k1WAcWt=RqJ9Xp5oOzhafvotwaPfx0YQLoLdxNBMk5XZw@mail.gmail.com> <201407152357.RAA15285@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6ODdgPtzo98SnzA6y4TPuo4oi=kbgn+6-bRUKZD_XfkKkA@mail.gmail.com> <ffeff82b8c960824b6d77da0bed59b32.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <201407160201.UAA16070@mail.lariat.net> <CABa+6OBS1vJ7bYLeU-z1QYYnk9VDnqGHNMEVnGR+xbptNAneTg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <eb979943ac1eb0d86e3e2e6dbab60160.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Wow, first time I ever saw this line.... so thanks for the text. partnerships among interested entities...that leaves it open to all. Unless, a bureaucrat wants to pull out this some other supporting documents....something additional that is all encompassing like our equal opportunity, filed and registered bla-blah-blah, on the government list...and now you have to do this and this and this. Sometimes it's even referred to on page 681...723...it often becomes a battle of words. That cost money and demands time. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a lawyer somethings a simple as what an IP address is. Seen that happen before a lot ! Just saying.....however, you did prove your point that it's possible. Well done. Thank You Bob Evans CTO > Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural > Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please > read carefully. > > *2.* > We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage > participation in > > the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including > competitive local exchange > carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs, > State and regional authorities, > Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49 > We were encouraged to see the > diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties. > Of the more than 1,000 > expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not > currently ETCs, including electric > utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments. > *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they > initially submit their > formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but > that they must obtain ETC > designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding > award. > As stated in the Tech > Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within > 90 > days of the public notice > announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51 > Any winning bidder that fails to notify the > Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe > will be considered in default > and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural > broadband experiment. Any funding that > is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other > applicants. We conclude this is necessary > so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner. > However, a waiver of this > deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate > that > it has engaged in good faith to > obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day > timeframe.[52] > *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt > a > presumption > that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected > participant within a specified period of > time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission > will address the ETC > application. Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54 > We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a > state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may > request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section > 214(e)(6).55 > Although we are > confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance > broadband, and we expect states to > expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest > in providing voice and > broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also > recognize the need to adopt > measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in > situations where there is a lack of > action by the state. > ====== > 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to > submit > their ETC applications to the relevant > jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice > announcing winning bids, and will presume an > entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15 > days of release of the public notice. A > waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an > entity has an ETC application pending with > a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC > application will occur after the 90-day > window. > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> > wrote: > >> I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would >> take >> to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. >> We'd >> need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned >> telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically >> support "over the top" VoIP so that we can help our customers get >> inexpensive >> telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) >> >> --Brett Glass >> >> >> At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: >> >> I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is >>> riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for >>> internet services...pretty much just for LECs. >>> Thank You >>> Bob Evans >>> CTO >>> >> >> > > > -- > Fletcher Kittredge > GWI > 8 Pomerleau Street > Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 > 207-602-1134 > From fred at cisco.com Wed Jul 16 14:50:08 2014 From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker (fred)) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:50:08 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> Message-ID: <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140716/4decad73/attachment.pgp> From brunner at nic-naa.net Wed Jul 16 15:45:39 2014 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:45:39 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> Message-ID: <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > Relevant article by former FCC Chair > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. YMMV, of course. Eric From jason.iannone at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 16:10:13 2014 From: jason.iannone at gmail.com (Jason Iannone) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:10:13 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> Message-ID: <CAGL1wDSQ4NkUZABNk+Sb3ZKZw2Gpru300OdB4PPBAEnhVquVKQ@mail.gmail.com> Barry, Your point is well made and applies to present conditions. I'm not sure the current Net Neutrality debate extends so much to access, though we should talk about that (Consumer access service policy: No servers at home!? Asymmetric bandwidth profiles!? What is this, the dark ages?). The problem as I understand exists within the realm of the backbone and content where scale is a concern. And your point still applies as some explicit value for adequate can be determined, i.e. 10 or 100g peer and transit links. Regarding neutrality, if public megacorp monetizes priority traffic, does that present a moral hazard for megacorp to allow interface saturation and push more content into priority service? What is the high water mark for priority services reaching best effort behavior, i.e. all traffic is priority contending for a single queue? Anyway, I feel like this horse is dead. I'd like to talk about neutrality in symmetry on consumer access services. I'd gladly trade my 30/5 for 15/15 with the ability to host services for the ~$60/mo I pay today. Jason On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote: > > Re: Net Neutrality > > In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the > internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content > provider -- have failed. > > For example, AOL, Prodigy, various "portals", MSN, Netscape, on and > on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is > clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point > stands. > > To a great extent "net neutrality" (or non-neutrality) is yet another > attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large. > > This doesn't prove it won't work but the track record viewed this way > is bad: 100% failure rate to date. > > Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an > enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isn't one of the choices. > > But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth? > > Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long. > > Note: I'm using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all > possible throughput parameters. > > For example if the norm "have-not" bandwidth were 100mb/s but the > "have" bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, > many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those > services in general don't even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some > ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they > were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny? > > Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing > news.google.com at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I don't. > > And if have-not-bw was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little > difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried > to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., there's always a new horizon, > or will be for a while. > > So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth > inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist > as a business force in a bw-poor world. > > Right now the business model of concern is video streaming. > > But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue? > > That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same > movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s? > > There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which > it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. > > 56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s > is luxurious for that application, you couldn't gain a business > advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads. > > There's simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate. > > The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes > around it. > > to paraphrase John Gilmore's famous observation on censorship. > > > P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly > exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) > "cloud" backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, > do the math. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From dougb at dougbarton.us Wed Jul 16 18:57:01 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:57:01 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: <53C6CAFD.6020906@dougbarton.us> On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> Relevant article by former FCC Chair >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ >> > > It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on > a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New > York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit piece." Doug From collin at averysmallbird.com Wed Jul 16 19:24:25 2014 From: collin at averysmallbird.com (Collin Anderson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:24:25 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C6CAFD.6020906@dougbarton.us> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> <53C6CAFD.6020906@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <CAC+VsLvyr53gBtNKCOyNdtQqRSE-AaTmXqNmgg00kpRVXv9eXA@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote: > Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what > did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated > or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit > piece." > Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year. -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C. From dougb at dougbarton.us Wed Jul 16 19:33:22 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:33:22 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAC+VsLvyr53gBtNKCOyNdtQqRSE-AaTmXqNmgg00kpRVXv9eXA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> <53C6CAFD.6020906@dougbarton.us> <CAC+VsLvyr53gBtNKCOyNdtQqRSE-AaTmXqNmgg00kpRVXv9eXA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C6D382.8000803@dougbarton.us> On 07/16/2014 12:24 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us > <mailto:dougb at dougbarton.us>> wrote: > > Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, > what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is > misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe > that it's a "hit piece." > > > Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year. Ah, gotcha. :) Thanks for that insight. Doug From bzs at world.std.com Wed Jul 16 19:42:17 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:42:17 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <21446.54681.919312.829338@world.std.com> On July 15, 2014 at 13:08 nanog at brettglass.com (Brett Glass) wrote: > At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: > > >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which > >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. > > Very true. And there's another factor to consider. > > Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, > range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and > about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to > accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that > additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose > of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to > redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? You can do the same sort of calculation for devices. Once the screen is updating at the screen refresh rate you are done, plus or minus getting a faster screen but as you note that's not open-ended. At some point you can't see faster refreshes anyhow. etc for other human interface devices. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From m.hallgren at free.fr Wed Jul 16 21:31:39 2014 From: m.hallgren at free.fr (Michael Hallgren) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:31:39 +0200 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: <53C6EF3B.4070305@free.fr> Le 16/07/2014 17:45, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit : > On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> Relevant article by former FCC Chair >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ >> > > It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) > on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of > New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. > > YMMV, of course. I tend to agree ;-) Now, what's the ops content of this discussion? Might be a better choice to reroute this discussion to a suitable ISOC forum? I don't judge, but I think the debate is of great value, but not necessarily ``here'', but rather ``there''?---see you there? ;-) Cheers, mh > Eric From randy at psg.com Wed Jul 16 22:30:51 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:30:51 +0900 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> Message-ID: <m2fvi1djhg.wl%randy@psg.com> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, or “off ramps,” and better quality of service. In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened the author neglected to say what planet he was on randy From joelja at bogus.com Wed Jul 16 22:51:32 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:51:32 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <m2fvi1djhg.wl%randy@psg.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> <m2fvi1djhg.wl%randy@p! sg.com> Message-ID: <53C701F4.2030605@bogus.com> On 7/16/14 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ > In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — > traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, > or “off ramps,” and better quality of service. > > In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened If one deliberately allows a path to become congested in the direction towards a receiver, It is the peer, not the receiving network who discards the traffic... > the author neglected to say what planet he was on > randy > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 286 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140716/ef6502d7/attachment.pgp> From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 16 22:57:56 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:57:56 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <97179ED1-F137-4E75-935C-06A0C9D83391@delong.com> On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , nanog at brettglass.com wrote: > At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote: > >> How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? > > Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix > would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting > from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us > customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix > users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its > freight. So, to sum up, Brett, you feel that Netflix should be forced to bill their BrettGlassNet users extra to cover what they pay to BrettGlassNet to reach the users to deliver the content the users have requested instead of expecting you to bill the users for that yourself. Because Netflix refuses to do this and has enough of a market presence that you aren't succeeding so well telling your customers that they shouldn't care so much about Netflix, you're blaming Netflix for this problem? It's a shame to see a small provider acting so much like the big $CABLECO and $TELCO providers thinking that they have a right to extort money from content providers to avoid billing their subscribers more accurately. > more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line > because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive > connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to > allow caching. The fact that some access provider was able to extort Netflix because they are a bigger 800# gorilla than Netflix shouldn't make you expect that you can extort Netflix in the same way, nor does it mean that by refusing to be extorted by smaller providers, Netflix is extorting you with their market position. In an ideal world, frankly, none of the access providers would be allowed to double-dip like this. You should have to bill your customers for the traffic you deliver to them. If they want more than your network can accommodate at what they currently pay, then they should have to pay. How you sort that out with your customers is your business. If you don't want your customers that don't use Netflix to subsidize your customers that use Netflix, use a usage-sensitive pricing or charge a premium service of some sort or whatever. That's between you and your customers (so long as you have competition and your customers have choice). > If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, > will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying to find ways to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their customers accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone involved. > Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come > along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily > destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and > lower costs due to caching at the ISP. Your best hope is to see your competition forced to move to a pricing model that reflects the costs of delivering what their customers demand so that you can move to a similar pricing model without losing customers. It's not that I'm insensitive to your situation, just that I see this as an example of one of the many ways in which the current model has become utterly dysfunctional and attempting to perpetuate it seems ill-advised to me. If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on Netlfix". If Netflix only peered in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive nationwide network, I'd say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major peering centers already and continues to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and third-tier peering centers. I'd say that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in peering centers Netflix is in, they have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection of transit providers to move the bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly. It seems to me that Netflix is being about as good a net citizen as is possible and I, for one, consider them an example that should be emulated. Access providers should have to face the reality that they are charging their customers to deliver bits they request to them. If the price they charge is insufficient to cover their costs in doing so, then they need to find ways to solve that problem. It is not Netflix fault that your customers want more bits from Netflix than they want from some other content provider, that's just Netflix having a successful business. I might have bought the idea that Netflix as a new product represents so much more than expected bandwidth that you needed time to adjust your business model if you were making that argument 5 or more years ago. However, today, video is an expected service and Netflix is far from the only very large provider of high-bandwidth video content. Owen From mike at mtcc.com Wed Jul 16 23:22:34 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:22:34 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <97179ED1-F137-4E75-935C-06A0C9D83391@delong.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <97179ED1-F137-4E75-935C-06A0C9D83391@delong.com> Message-ID: <53C7093A.7030601@mtcc.com> On 7/16/14, 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , nanog at brettglass.com wrote: > > > >> If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, >> will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. > I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying to find ways > to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their customers > accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone involved. > > Indeed. We've heard this at each turn of the bandwidth crank from OMG JPG's! to OMG VoIP! to OMG HD! to OMG Quantum Teleportation! (ok, maybe not the last. yet.) Nobody's owed a business model, and we all know it's messy around the edges. Suck it up, and maybe your customers will too. Mike From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 16 23:22:57 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:22:57 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407131954.NAA11092@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <CAEmG1=p_2g67MkQWt3UWU99fFugpeB6gXXsC=J94WBTjsbi_XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFG21og3iN9OxgojWCCKfb0g6EwP0oLVbGgXX8-P=8h-h=Gmjw@mail.gmail.com> <201407131954.NAA11092@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <6333BAFF-7D9D-4321-BA09-840E4DBD7A7E@delong.com> > However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an > ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the solution > is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the streams in > encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate, > secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to obtain > usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an > ISP-owned cache. Problem solved. That works for individual sessions, but not for the cache scenario. Either everyone gets the same key (which is equivalent to no key at all) or the cache has to be able to participate in the encryption. Beyond that small fly in the ointment, I believe Netflix current model operates pretty much as you suggest. However, their cache boxes have to participate actively in the encryption in order to avoid providing the same decryption key to everyone for any given show. I suspect (though I don't know) that encrypted content is loaded onto the cache in a form encrypted with a key known to the software on the cache. That each streaming request causes said content to be decrypted and immediately re-encrypted with a user-specific key and/or session-specific key and then sent to the user. Hence the requirement that the cache be on a box run by Netflix, and probably part of the reason for the greater power requirements. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 16 23:33:23 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:33:23 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: > >> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >> the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, > > My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract > additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix > should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix > subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They > want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include > paying ransom to third parties. Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they paid Netflix for the content. You are in the delivery business. Now, if you didn't charge your customers at all and charged all the content providers, instead, a la the way it is done with various shipping companies where $BOX_STORE pays the shipping company to deliver their product and bills the customer separately for shipping (or builds the cost of shipping into the price), then no problem. However, that's not what you want. You want to double dip. You want to charge your customers to deliver the bits they ask for from Netflix (and everyone else), then turn around and ask Netflix (and possibly others) to also pay you for the same delivery. It would be like FedEx or OnTrac taking money from Amazon for a shipment and then showing up at my house and asking me to pay extra or they won't give me my package. > We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain > minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street > in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain > maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific > third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, > it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair, > because we would be doing something special just for it -- something > which costs money. OK, so what's the problem? If I were Netflix, I probably wouldn't pay you, either. I'd suggest to any customers we had in common that they seek out a provider that was willing to build a better network. > If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear > us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have > no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly Sorry, but explaining to the user that the reason their content isn't working as well as it should is because there is insufficient bandwidth from their ISP to Netflix is a simple statement of fact, not a smear campaign. Don't like it, build a network better suited to your customer's demands. > considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that > IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of > bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- > actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their > resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. Go for it! If you can compete with Netflix on price and quality of content and user experience, you might succeed and you might even put them out of business. That's great for everyone. I suspect, instead, that you'll get a pretty quick lesson in economics, but I encourage you to try because it can't possibly harm me if you do so and there's good upside for me if you somehow succeed. > This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement > to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast > that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. ISPs might sign on, but what about their customers? Why would the customer want to pay what that service is likely to cost? Or do you think you can bury Netflix without customers signing up? Owen From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Jul 17 00:14:14 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:14:14 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> Message-ID: <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > >> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: >> >>> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >>> the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >>> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, >> My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract >> additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix >> should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix >> subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They >> want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include >> paying ransom to third parties. > Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers > asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they > paid Netflix for the content. > > Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 00:13:56 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:13:56 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> References: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <D3C95313-4C62-48F9-8DFD-EDD2E9E61520@delong.com> On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Jay Ashworth wrote: > > [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] > > Jay, > Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? > > Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: > > 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand. > > 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. Well, there are multiple possibilities here... A: CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N<->NETFLIX B: CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT<->NETFLIX C: CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->NETFLIX In case A, it's pretty obvious that CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT_A and NETFLIX$->TRANSIT_N It's not entirely clear what the economics would be between TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N, but most likely settlement free peering. In case B, it's fairly obvious CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK and it's less clear wehter: B1: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX (transit double-dip) B2: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT and Transit is settlement free with Netflix (Access pays transit) B3: TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX and Access is settlement free with Transit (Netflix pays transit) I'm sure in the real world there are likely examples of all three scenarios. In case C, we arrive at what I think most of the argument is actually about. Obviuosly, CUST$->ACCESS_NETWORK. The question is whether there should also be ACCESS_NETWORK<-$NETFLIX, which is what Brett is claiming should happen and what at least one very large ACCESS_NETWORK has been able to achieve at least temporarily. In my opinion, this case is a case of Access Double Dip where the access network is being paid by both the customer and the supplier for the same delivery. As I said, this would be like paying for a product from $BOX_STORE and having $BOX_STORE bill me for shipping, and pay $CARRIER for deliver only to have $CARRIER show up at my door asking for even more money before they will fork over my package. > 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. I don't think that's really part of the argument here. > 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay. Not really, IMHO. (See above and below) > 5. $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with Netflix making a visible stink about it. LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORK may be able to force Netflix to pay, but that's not the same as saying Netflix _SHOULD_ pay. It's more like recognizing that market power and a large customer base can often force an economic decision that is contrary to what _SHOULD_ happen by any other rational evaluation. > 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys "you pay." And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes. Perhaps, but that's not really what is happening here if you look at it in more detail. I don't deny that Netflix _COULD_ do this, just as $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs _HAVE_ apparently done this to Netflix. However, so far, Netflix seems to be trying as hard as they can to provide cost-effective alternatives for ISPs to accept their bits in a variety of ways and allowing the ISP to choose which solution works best for them. True, Netflix hasn't built out every single distant corner of the universe with their peering network, but I would say that by any reasonable view of the situation, they have aggressively built quite a network over a large fraction of their service geography and to their credit, they are continuing to aggressively expand that network. To the best of my knowledge (and I'm sure Dave will correct me if I am wrong), Netflix would prefer to deliver bits settlement free directly to as many ACCESS_PROVIDERS as possible, because it saves Netflix from paying transit costs and it saves ACCESS_PROVIDERS from paying additional circuit or transit costs and it provides a better customer experience all around. In cases where Netflix' network does not geographically overlap $ACCESS_PROVIDER's network, then one or both will need to cover the cost of bridging that distance, whether with an IP transit relationship, a circuit, or some other mechanism. In most cases, since Netflix is in a high percentage of the major peering centers, most $ACCESS_PROVIDERS already have to build into one of those centers in order to reach many other things, so it is reasonable for them to connect to Netflix at that same point. In other cases, they use a transit provider to reach those centers as well, and so likely they will use the same transit to reach Netflix. In virtually every case, they're going to reach Netflix the same way they reach the majority of other top sites on the internet. In such a case, it makes sense that $ACCESS_PROVIDER pays for their unique geographic situation. It doesn't make sense to expect Netflix to subsidize their choice of geography. It seems to me that other than $LARGE_ACCESS_PROVIDERS' public statements trying to extort money from $CONTENT_PROVIDERS and Brett's posts in this conversation, the vast majority of people in this thread have overwhelmingly agreed with this point of view. > 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff. Probably true, but I will point out that one of the main reasons that the Internet has become such a cost-effective alternative even for voice traffic vs. the PSTN is the lack of said formal policies and regulations about settlements. Of course, you did say "reasonably balanced" which I don't think is a term that could be rationally applied to the ITU settlement rules for the PSTN. Owen From dougb at dougbarton.us Thu Jul 17 00:24:51 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:24:51 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <53C717D3.5090102@dougbarton.us> On 07/16/2014 05:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD > in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. And now they pay to pump bits out from their servers to their customers. What's your point? Doug From bbqroast at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 00:32:28 2014 From: bbqroast at gmail.com (mcfbbqroast .) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:32:28 +1200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <D3C95313-4C62-48F9-8DFD-EDD2E9E61520@delong.com> References: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> <D3C95313-4C62-48F9-8DFD-EDD2E9E61520@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAKJkDEvenr-qnWP+dPF9wQVso-pGmJKjapi4LJmLRj3mdHw6yg@mail.gmail.com> Brett, Why would Netflix pay your ISP? You are, Brett, a tiny ISP. Only 200 customers. That's barely a /24 of IP addresses. What will happen instead is that your customers will pay to subsidize the network of larger ISPs who do have that marketing power. This is the true risk. Of Netflix is also paying money to the ISP, how do we know the true cost of the connection? A big ISP can fight their way into a position where no other ISP can compete. From dmiller at tiggee.com Thu Jul 17 00:34:22 2014 From: dmiller at tiggee.com (David Miller) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:34:22 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <53C71A0E.4000400@tiggee.com> On 7/16/2014 8:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: >> >>> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: >>> >>>> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >>>> the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >>>> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, >>> My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract >>> additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix >>> should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix >>> subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They >>> want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include >>> paying ransom to third parties. >> Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers >> asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they >> paid Netflix for the content. >> >> > > Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD > in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. > > Miles Fidelman Yes, Netflix did pay the postage for shipping CDs out of the fee you paid them. However, the mailman drove over roads provided and maintained by taxpayers to place that CD into a mailbox that you bought, owned, and maintained. If the glut of CDs had required bigger postal vehicles, then Netflix would not have bought bigger vehicles for the postal service. If the CD didn't fit in your mailbox, then Netflix would not have paid for a bigger mailbox for you. -DMM -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 553 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140716/9f5f29b3/attachment.pgp> From roganschlassa at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 00:38:21 2014 From: roganschlassa at gmail.com (Rogan Schlassa) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:38:21 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <D3C95313-4C62-48F9-8DFD-EDD2E9E61520@delong.com> References: <26532262.6118.1405303692397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53C3DF39.6030708@meetinghouse.net> <D3C95313-4C62-48F9-8DFD-EDD2E9E61520@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAO8ztucBGogJNPuc-xeWsk+wKoQcCmDSjjy=1u4WeS2fPPLBVw@mail.gmail.com> Hello This is so simple. ISP offers xxMbps and should deliver that to the customer. Dear customer. If you cannot stream full quality, upgrade . Dear ISP stop promising xxMbps if you advertise a port cap lower than theoretical port bandwidth. Basically fraud. On Jul 16, 2014 7:19 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> > wrote: > > > Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > > [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's > behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- > Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service > leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] > > > > Jay, > > Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my > time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's > behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. > that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? > > > > Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: > > > > 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single > network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and > Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate > demand. > > > > 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple > networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix > buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit > networks in the middle. > > Well, there are multiple possibilities here... > > A: CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N<->NETFLIX > B: CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT<->NETFLIX > C: CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->NETFLIX > > In case A, it's pretty obvious that CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT_A and > NETFLIX$->TRANSIT_N > It's not entirely clear what the economics would be between > TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N, but most likely settlement free peering. > > In case B, it's fairly obvious CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK and it's less clear > wehter: > B1: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX (transit > double-dip) > B2: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT and Transit is settlement free > with Netflix (Access pays transit) > B3: TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX and Access is settlement free with > Transit (Netflix pays transit) > > I'm sure in the real world there are likely examples of all three > scenarios. > > In case C, we arrive at what I think most of the argument is actually > about. Obviuosly, CUST$->ACCESS_NETWORK. > The question is whether there should also be ACCESS_NETWORK<-$NETFLIX, > which is what Brett is claiming should happen and what at least one very > large ACCESS_NETWORK has been able to achieve at least temporarily. In my > opinion, this case is a case of Access Double Dip where the access network > is being paid by both the customer and the supplier for the same delivery. > > As I said, this would be like paying for a product from $BOX_STORE and > having $BOX_STORE bill me for shipping, and pay $CARRIER for deliver only > to have $CARRIER show up at my door asking for even more money before they > will fork over my package. > > > 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit > networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that > wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. > > I don't think that's really part of the argument here. > > > 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys > should pay. > > Not really, IMHO. (See above and below) > > > 5. $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with > Netflix making a visible stink about it. > > LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORK may be able to force Netflix to pay, but that's not > the same as saying Netflix _SHOULD_ pay. It's more like recognizing that > market power and a large customer base can often force an economic decision > that is contrary to what _SHOULD_ happen by any other rational evaluation. > > > 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the > little guys "you pay." And yes, they're making it a little easier by > providing the CDN boxes. > > Perhaps, but that's not really what is happening here if you look at it in > more detail. I don't deny that Netflix _COULD_ do this, just as > $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs _HAVE_ apparently done this to Netflix. However, so > far, Netflix seems to be trying as hard as they can to provide > cost-effective alternatives for ISPs to accept their bits in a variety of > ways and allowing the ISP to choose which solution works best for them. > > True, Netflix hasn't built out every single distant corner of the universe > with their peering network, but I would say that by any reasonable view of > the situation, they have aggressively built quite a network over a large > fraction of their service geography and to their credit, they are > continuing to aggressively expand that network. > > To the best of my knowledge (and I'm sure Dave will correct me if I am > wrong), Netflix would prefer to deliver bits settlement free directly to as > many ACCESS_PROVIDERS as possible, because it saves Netflix from paying > transit costs and it saves ACCESS_PROVIDERS from paying additional circuit > or transit costs and it provides a better customer experience all around. > > In cases where Netflix' network does not geographically overlap > $ACCESS_PROVIDER's network, then one or both will need to cover the cost of > bridging that distance, whether with an IP transit relationship, a circuit, > or some other mechanism. In most cases, since Netflix is in a high > percentage of the major peering centers, most $ACCESS_PROVIDERS already > have to build into one of those centers in order to reach many other > things, so it is reasonable for them to connect to Netflix at that same > point. In other cases, they use a transit provider to reach those centers > as well, and so likely they will use the same transit to reach Netflix. In > virtually every case, they're going to reach Netflix the same way they > reach the majority of other top sites on the internet. In such a case, it > makes sense that $ACCESS_PROVIDER pays for their unique geographic > situation. It doesn't make sense to expect Netflix to subsidize their > choice of geography. > > It seems to me that other than $LARGE_ACCESS_PROVIDERS' public statements > trying to extort money from $CONTENT_PROVIDERS and Brett's posts in this > conversation, the vast majority of people in this thread have > overwhelmingly agreed with this point of view. > > > 7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and > regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of > stuff. > > Probably true, but I will point out that one of the main reasons that the > Internet has become such a cost-effective alternative even for voice > traffic vs. the PSTN is the lack of said formal policies and regulations > about settlements. Of course, you did say "reasonably balanced" which I > don't think is a term that could be rationally applied to the ITU > settlement rules for the PSTN. > > Owen > > From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 00:38:58 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:38:58 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <0AD1A7EC-F5E7-4224-BC7D-CD658D5630DB@delong.com> On Jul 16, 2014, at 17:14 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: >> >>> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: >>> >>>> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to >>>> the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you >>>> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, >>> My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract >>> additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix >>> should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix >>> subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They >>> want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include >>> paying ransom to third parties. >> Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers >> asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they >> paid Netflix for the content. >> >> > > Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. Because that was the contract you had with Netflix. Did you also pay the post office to bring the DVD to you? (To the best of my knowledge, Netflix never shipped CDs)? Yes, if you pay Netflix to pay the delivery charges, I have no problem with them paying your ISP. However, in this case, you're paying your ISP, so Netflix shouldn't have to. My point is your ISP shouldn't get to double-dip. Owen From jof at thejof.com Thu Jul 17 00:50:00 2014 From: jof at thejof.com (Jonathan Lassoff) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:50:00 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAHsqw9uWzeMPrKq0GUtbLvHs_47wEeudGZkWZCBOQNUG_7B_iA@mail.gmail.com> Wow -- be careful playing with public eBGP sessions unless you know what you're doing. It can affect the entire Internet. Since you're just connecting to a single upstream ISP, you wont qualify for a public AS number. So, you'll have to work with your upstream ISP to agree on a private AS number you can use. You will be setting up an eBGP session (which is a session between two different AS numbers, as opposed to iBGP, wherein the AS numbers are the same). As for running BGP on a dedicated server, it'll depend on the OS in use. Assuming Linux, take a look at Quagga, BIRD, and ExaBGP. http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/ http://bird.network.cz/ https://code.google.com/p/exabgp/ It may be a *lot* easier for you to just have your upstream ISP announce your IP space, and route it to your dedicated server, unless you need the ability to turn it off and on over time. Cheers, jof On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to > set those up or which one I would need. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > > Thanks! From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 17 02:37:41 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:37:41 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <0AD1A7EC-F5E7-4224-BC7D-CD658D5630DB@delong.com> References: <201407132301.RAA12515@mail.lariat.net> <05F82DD0-14C3-4024-8720-E33E3B0AFA95@delong.com> <53C71556.3060801@meetinghouse.net> <0AD1A7EC-F5E7-4224-BC7D-CD658D5630DB@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3ui04fqqz54F4XkHCm7ZRcpzzxJwwc3Tz=CoichTHZog@mail.gmail.com> FCC Counsel Jonathan Sallet spoke at the USA-IGF today - I've pulled it out as a clip https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014/videos/56799195 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 07:51:03 2014 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:51:03 +0200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <97179ED1-F137-4E75-935C-06A0C9D83391@delong.com> References: <201407130022.SAA03755@mail.lariat.net> <CAG2k2x-35W-H8sFHzyVruv4sQZqqbOuXTM_RSvmyLx_8JX0BxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407131609.KAA09231@mail.lariat.net> <97179ED1-F137-4E75-935C-06A0C9D83391@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAPkb-7ANkc8qHXmkB5Gvek8PBPCj8J8fEs9HG4ASnJ5=_CjqOQ@mail.gmail.com> On 17 July 2014 00:57, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on > Netlfix". If Netflix only peered > in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive > nationwide network, I'd > say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major > peering centers already and continues > to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and > third-tier peering centers. I'd say > that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in > peering centers Netflix is in, they > have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection > of transit providers to move the > bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly. > Except they don't. Excuse me for talking about the world outside America. Netflix believes Denmark is an important enough market to pay for danish subtitles for their entire catalog and to have Denmark as a launch market for their service in Europe. But they can't be bothered to have a physical presence in Denmark. We have to go to a different country and a long way at that, to get to Stockholm in Sweden, where Netflix peers at the Netnod IX. Some danish ISPs do peer at Netnod, but it is only the ones that are big enough to qualify for a cache anyway. It is not economical to buy a link to Stockholm. Transit is cheaper, so that is what we are all doing. Then Netflix announces that you have to either have a cache or to peer directly with Netflix to get Super HD. This is a case of reverse net neutrality: The content provider is filtering content to ISPs that wont pay the transit bill for the content provider. "for the content provider" not "to the content provider". We pay our transit, it should not be our problem how Netflix pays theirs. Luckily this is so far only theory. We still get the Super HD. Either Netflix never implemented the policy or one of our transit providers made a deal with Netflix. I am not sure which one. But nevertheless even threatening to play reverse net neutrality games is NOT being the good guy. If transit is too expensive for Netflix, they should put in a shared cache at the danish IX (DIX) in Copenhagen. We would all be happy to peer with Netflix at that location. If Netflix chooses to host the cache at Interxion they also get access to the Netnod IX that covers Denmark and southern Sweden, a metropolitan area of more than 10 million people. Regards, Baldur From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 10:03:41 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 03:03:41 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3EF9E92A-94E9-4EFB-A0B0-CA48DD3C8793@delong.com> On Jul 14, 2014, at 08:17 , Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: >> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >>> or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix >>> shell != internet. >> >> You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a >> machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you >> were "on the internet"? > > > An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize: > > To Be "On" the Internet > > March, 1995 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775 But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is no such thing as "THE Internet". Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 10:00:25 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 03:00:25 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21442.57161.506252.52567@world.std.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <21442.57161.506252.52567@world.std.com> Message-ID: <F4A0734F-1556-41B8-BF35-CD6FA2E20708@delong.com> > Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly > protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free > and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they > already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated > sinecures. The problem with this is that so long as service providers are allowed to be facilities providers, there is an economic natural tendency to monopoly or small-N oligopoly in all but the densest of population centers that will result as a simple matter of external reality. It simply costs too damn much to put facilities in for there to be large-N copies of facilities serving the same area. That is one of the reasons I'm such a huge fan of home-run SWCs[1] with large colos run by a facilities only provider, whether that FOP is a municipality, NGO, or for profit entity (or even multiples if that were to somehow be feasible). Owen [1] Serving "Wire" Center -- a hub where all of the fiber from a given distribution area (of radius N where N < maximum reasonable distance served by common transmission technologies available at the time of construction with costs in reason for household usage. Today, I believe that's about 5km, but it may be more). From nick at foobar.org Thu Jul 17 10:24:45 2014 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:24:45 +0100 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407082256.26816.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Message-ID: <53C7A46D.3090405@foobar.org> On 14/07/2014 18:32, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is targeting RR which > is not in the forwarding path, so there¹s no forwarding towards any > destination filtered out from RIB. > Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone and in case of > incorrect configuration would result in blackholing. there are other drawbacks too: the difference in convergence time between < 24k prefixes and a full dfz is usually going to be large although I haven't tested this on an me3600x yet. Also these boxes only have 1G of memory might be a bit tight as the dfz increases. For sure, it's already not enough on a bunch of other vanilla ios platforms. Nick > > Cheers, > Jeff > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> > Organization: SEACOM > Reply-To: <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> > Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM > To: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer > >> On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag Bhatia wrote: >> >>> In this scenario what is best practice for giving full >>> table to downstream? >> >> In our case, we have three types of edge routers; Juniper >> MX480 + Cisco ASR1006, and the Cisco ME3600X. >> >> For the MX480 and ASR1006 have no problems supporting a full >> table. So customers peer natively. >> >> The ME3600X is a small switch, that supports only up to >> 24,000 IPv4 and 5,000 IPv6 FIB entries. However, Cisco have >> a feature called BGP Selective Download: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/nodnmct >> >> Using BGP-SD, we can send a full BGP table from our route >> reflectors to our ME3600X switches, without worrying about >> them entering the FIB, i.e., they are held only in memory. >> The beauty - you can advertise these routes to customers >> natively, without clunky eBGP Multi-Hop sessions running >> rampant. >> >> Of course, with BGP-SD, you still need a 0/0 + ::/0 route in >> the FIB for traffic to flow from your customers upstream, >> but that is fine as it's only two entries :-). >> >> If your system supports a BGP-SD-type implementation, I'd >> recommend it, provided you have sufficient control plane >> memory. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark. > > From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 11:37:46 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:37:46 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <20D9400E-1680-4758-9F9B-61008B64BEB1@delong.com> On Jul 14, 2014, at 21:21 , Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Mike: > > An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. Interesting... I, and many of my customers, have ASNs and are running BGP and haven't had to tweak or babysit it for years. It just cruises along doing the right thing. Generally, we only have to modify it when we add/move/change a peering and/or transit relationship. > Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. That's fine, and from the rest of the world's perspective, your network is just another part of their network. You are invisible and irrelevant. > As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; content providers at the edge do not. I disagree. Many content and eyeball networks engage in a variety of forms of peering in various situations and for various reasons. The definition of "peering" is an exterior gateway protocol adjacency formed between two routers in different autonomous systems. (note, I use the term exterior gateway protocol in the generic sense, where BGP is the most prominent example du jour, not to specifically refer to the now antiquated EGP of days gone by). > Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. Nope... Netflix is trying to help their customers and make it as easy as they reasonably can for the eyeball networks that serve those customers. Some less than scrupulous eyeball networks seem to be fighting a war to try and extort Netflix to subsidize their operations, and you have thus placed yourself in some interesting and dubious company by attempting to carry out a similar attempt at extortion. Perhaps you are emboldened by the success of one or more of these very large eyeball networks into thinking that this is how the world should operate. Perhaps something else drives your beliefs. Either way, I suspect that if your entire subscriber base disappeared from Netflix' customer roles, they would barely notice, if at all. OTOH, I suspect you get fairly regular complaints from your customers because you don't provide adequate bandwidth to enough of the internet to include reliable functional access to Netflix as part of your product line. Regardless of what you say in the fine print, your customers are expecting that they are buying access to the entire internet, including Netflix. They're asking for those packets from Netflix and once Netflix gets them to the front door of one or more of the ASNs advertising your customer's network numbers, Netflix has done their job. From there, your customers have paid you to take those bits and deliver them. Your failure to do so is just that... Your failure. Trying to get Netflix to help compensate you for a business model that doesn't provide sufficient revenue to correct the situation is absurd at best. Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 11:47:40 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:47:40 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <1BCFE7F5-A678-4659-B643-31907049DC22@delong.com> On Jul 14, 2014, at 23:24 , Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: >> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, >> >> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much >> larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start with. > > While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee > analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address > argument: > Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP $500 /40 <0.01 $1000 /36 way<0.01 $2000 /32 way way<0.01 $4000 /28 far <0.01 $8000 /24 way far <0.01 $16000 /20 tremendoulsy <0.01 $32000 > /20 Mastercard! > Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume > purchases. I note that even LARIAT does this. You charge $60 for > 1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps. Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to > ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps? More importantly, in those cases, you are paying for units of a product. ARIN is a registry, kind of like your local DMV. Have you noticed that if you own more than one vehicle, you don't pay the same amount for those vehicles? Did you know that most DMV's have fleet registration discounts where you pay less per vehicle to register multiple vehicles? In the case of ARIN, you are not buying IP addresses from ARIN. You are paying ARIN for the service of registering the block(s) to you for uniqueness among cooperating entities. So arguing about ARIN fees in terms of cost per IP is absurd. Oh, and I've taken the liberty of correcting the prefix sizes in the above table to reflect the modern internet, rather than the antiquated prefix and pricing data presented before. Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 11:58:17 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:58:17 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <C3B36465-5CCA-4181-8969-6EF68FA92B53@arin.net> <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net> <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org> <201407151509.JAA01451@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <AEC9EF80-1A34-4838-81AE-80E931557B75@delong.com> When was the last time you did an ARIN request for resources for a large or x-large provider? I have reasonably recent (<2 years ago) experience doing requests for XX-Small, X-Small, Small, Large, and X-Large organizations, including 2 organizations that qualified for /24s (the max size for a large organization, one as an additional and one as an initial). I can tell you for certain that the scrutiny on ARIN's part has been very nearly identical in all cases. If anything, I got more scrutiny on some of the bigger requests than any of the smaller ones. Further, ARIN also has economies of scale, because you are paying for registration services, not IP addresses. No matter how much you want to keep trying to ignore that, the reality is that if anything, the bigger organizations are the ones potentially getting overcharged because the records for a /16 cost roughly the same to maintain as the records for a /48. There are some mitigating factors (numbers of SWIPs, frequency of additional requests, quality of request submissions, etc.), but exact cost accounting and billing based on it would be a bigger nightmare that might cost more to administer than is collected under the current system. While I will agree that some of the changes to the ARIN fee structure in the last round were not for the good, I really don't think your argument about price per IP has any merit whatsoever as it is completely divorced from the reality of what you are paying ARIN for. Owen On Jul 15, 2014, at 07:58 , Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > Matt: > > Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in > shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! > Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no > reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason > for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little > guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. > > --Brett Glass > > At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote: > >> While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee >> analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address >> argument: >> >> Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP >> $500 /22 0.49 >> $1000 /20 0.24 >> $2000 /18 0.12 >> $4000 /16 0.06 >> $8000 /14 0.03 >> $16000 /12 0.02 >> $32000 > /12 Mastercard! >> >> Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume >> purchases. From jared at puck.nether.net Thu Jul 17 12:19:09 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:19:09 -0400 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <37C5AE02-85A7-4DDC-ABF6-A7C3ABC5B780@gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> <37C5AE02-85A7-4DDC-ABF6-A7C3ABC5B780@gmail.com> Message-ID: <FAB54096-3117-4B43-B27E-38FAA487D6EB@puck.nether.net> On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:48 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: >> >> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote: >> >>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south. What conversations have you had with them?... >> >> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits on rented land). > > Local fiber provider? How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in Laramie? > > And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem. There are a bunch. I can recommend one privately if you can't find one. > > Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only does not scale. The problem is partly a technological one. If you have a fiber span from east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi amplifier. That OEO cost isn't "very high", but hitting every city like that becomes expensive quickly. This is why your 10G from EQUINIX-SJ to EQUNIX-ASH costs the same as the 10G loop from the DC to your local office. The cost is the OEO ends. If you're not in a fiber rich environment you are screwed. I have at&t fiber less than 1200 feet from me but they do not offer any non-dialtone services in my area. I'm all-poles to the end of the new comcast segment as well but due to a mid-part that doesn't have the density required to meet their metrics there continue to be only fixed wireless choices here. Others have suggested the UBNT gear. I'm using it myself, but I'll say.. it still leaves a lot to be desired. It's mostly meant for use in less developed countries. Their latest 5Ghz access gear often takes 6-12 months to get FCC certified to operate in the full 5ghz band. With the recent opening all the way down to 5.1 this spring with the FCC that certification process restarted. They are great for hopping short distances at high speeds in the US, but are very susceptible to interference. (The NanoBeam, now PowerBeam is a bit better). my backhaul is 3 miles and works well for my use case. Cheaper than the T1 before and higher speeds. There's a lot of people in wispa around the edges you can find doing things, and many others doing it that aren't in wispa. Most are small businesses (Some are larger) and suffer from poor business choices, but the biggest problem I see is lack of ability to get high speed access as Brett is commenting. Prices may be low at the major DCs but out in these areas expect $10/Mb or more, sometimes not including loop. - Jared From rps at maine.edu Thu Jul 17 12:41:41 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:41:41 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> Message-ID: <CALFTrnM_Nq0NS-AMMXu-t_neWLdLudHGy6z9yNoyfV_zL-3jHw@mail.gmail.com> "In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened, and nothing is broken that needs fixing." Prefixing a statement with "in truth" doesn't actually make it true, Bob. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred at cisco.com> wrote: > Relevant article by former FCC Chair > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From lear at cisco.com Thu Jul 17 14:02:24 2014 From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:02:24 +0200 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <117450.1405265423@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetingh! ouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> <117450.1405265423@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <53C7D770.2070401@cisco.com> On 7/13/14, 5:30 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine > that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average > person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those > poor souls who are double or triple NATTed is "on drugs".... You know I have a name for this now: (Keith) Moore's Law is that every conversation will eventually degenerate into a NAT debate. Eliot ps: with apologies to Keith. From nanog at jima.us Thu Jul 17 18:58:54 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:58:54 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <56669.2001:470:e992:5:208:54ff:fe46:4cbc.1405623534.squirrel@laughton.us> On Thu, July 10, 2014 8:01 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix. > (...) > > http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth And today, Level 3 responds: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/ BRB, I need to make some popcorn. Jima From bzs at world.std.com Thu Jul 17 19:46:20 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:46:20 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <F4A0734F-1556-41B8-BF35-CD6FA2E20708@delong.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <21442.57161.506252.52567@world.std.com> <F4A0734F-1556-41B8-BF35-CD6FA2E20708@delong.com> Message-ID: <21448.10252.908408.924524@world.std.com> I meant that comment as more of a snark that if someone wants to argue let's let the market take care of it then first we should reign in the govt-issued monopolies and small-N oligopolies. I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about". There has been massive cross-subsidization from voice monopolies also. The whole thing stinks if one cherishes anything resembling a free and open market. But worse, much worse, are the vertical trusts. Comcast is the nation's major CATV provider with on demand and pay per view video. AND Comcast owns NBC Universal. This is like one company owning almost all the auto manufacturers, petroleum and gasoline companies, refineries, tire manufacturers, and the roads and road construction companies. And obtained all that by government fiat. All that's left, to beat the analogy to death, is one is more or less free to drive where they want. And now they're working on that! And it's getting worse not better (e.g., Comcast is trying to acquire #2 Time-Warner.) Shall we wait for them to merge with Verizon and then AT&T before we smell the coffee? Calling on the FCC to straighten any of this out is nonsense, they don't have the jurisdiction for starters. And, worse, the FCC's primary product is media censorship. What we need is the Dept of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to enforce anti-trust law probably with the help of Congress (yeah good luck with that.) The FCC is what happens AFTER we admit that we WANT it all to be one big monopoly like AT&T was pre-breakup. Then of course we'd have to regulate that monopoly. That's why the FCC was created (and spectrum management.) Right now it's the worst of both worlds, they get the effective monopoly with protections and almost none of the regulation. We're in a pickle. On July 17, 2014 at 03:00 owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: (me...) > > Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly > > protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free > > and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they > > already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated > > sinecures. > > The problem with this is that so long as service providers are allowed to be facilities providers, there is an economic natural tendency to monopoly or small-N oligopoly in all but the densest of population centers that will result as a simple matter of external reality. It simply costs too damn much to put facilities in for there to be large-N copies of facilities serving the same area. > > That is one of the reasons I'm such a huge fan of home-run SWCs[1] with large colos run by a facilities only provider, whether that FOP is a municipality, NGO, or for profit entity (or even multiples if that were to somehow be feasible). > > Owen > > [1] Serving "Wire" Center -- a hub where all of the fiber from a given distribution area (of radius N where N < maximum reasonable distance served by common transmission technologies available at the time of construction with costs in reason for household usage. Today, I believe that's about 5km, but it may be more). > From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 17 20:42:01 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:42:01 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFC16@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFC16@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <26EE84F1-587E-48C9-8181-0B0086863F18@delong.com> On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:19 , Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote: > I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move. If you want more than 1Mbps downstream or more than 384k upstream over terrestrial facilities in most of San Jose, California (the 3rd largest city by population in the largest population state in the US and the 10th largest city in the US last I looked), then you have exactly one choice. If that's not a monopoly, I'm not sure how you define one. The situation in the vast majority of the bay area (including most of silicon valley) is the same. It's even worse in less densely populated areas in many cases, though USF has distorted that to some extent because there are rural areas where the monopoly facilities based carrier has taken subsidies to provide higher quality access than is currently available to many of us living in more urban areas. > Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get. How is a customer supposed to react to that? In a location where their choice is $CABLECO for 30Mbps/7Mbps vs. $TELCO for 768k/384k, how, exactly, does one react in a meaningful or useful way? Owen From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jul 17 21:15:24 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:15:24 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600." <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <2029113.6044.1405188778802.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> Message-ID: <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600, Brett Glass said: > Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, > range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and > about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to > accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that > additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose > of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to > redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? Actually, vision is higher bandwidth than that - most VR people estimate that approaching human vision requires a gigapixel/second (at 24 bits or more per pixel) - and even that needs to play lots of eye-tracking games to concentrate the rendering on where the eye is focused. Consider how fast even high-end NVidia cards can pump out pixels and you can *still* see it's CGI. Well-shot 4K video of real objects displayed on a good monitor is *just* reaching the "it actually looks real" level - and that's a hell of a lot more than 4Mbps. And remember that bits are consumed by more than just one human per dwelling - you can have multiple people watching different things, and silicon-based consumers burning lots of bandwidth on behalf of their carbon-based masters. There's about a half-zillion ways a gaming console can burn bandwidth, for example. Heck, the Raspberry Pi under my TV can soak up more than 4Mbits/sec just doing a software update. /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140717/6b70f44c/attachment.pgp> From mike at mtcc.com Thu Jul 17 21:22:13 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:22:13 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and > watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G $339! I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. Mike From LarrySheldon at cox.net Thu Jul 17 23:42:39 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:42:39 -0500 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <T6yL1o02Z1cZc56016yN5m> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> <53C69E23.3010406@nic-naa.net> <T6yL1o02Z1cZc56016yN5m> Message-ID: <53C85F6F.6000604@cox.net> On 7/16/2014 1:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >> On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> Relevant article by former FCC Chair >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ >>> >>> >> >> It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on >> a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New >> York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. > > Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what > did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is > misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that > it's a "hit piece." His use of phrases like "by a Republican "free markets" ideologue" pretty much nailed the value of his remarks for me. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Fri Jul 18 00:39:12 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 02:39:12 +0200 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407082256.26816.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Message-ID: <201407180239.16297.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 14, 2014 07:32:43 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > Mark, > > BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is > targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so > there¹s no forwarding towards any destination filtered > out from RIB. > Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone > and in case of incorrect configuration would result in > blackholing. As with every feature on a router, you need to know what you're doing to make it work. Don't blame the cows if you turn on knobs you have no business using, or don't care to learn the risks of. We use this feature in our network successfully, because we know what we're doing, and care to understand the risks. If I use it in a manner other than previously directed (while I know it's a use-case, I've never heard of any vendor saying it ONLY targeted out-of-path route reflectors, but then again, I don't generally walk vendor corridors for the scoop), well, welcome to the Internet; where core routers can either be behemoths that move air the size of a football field and could be mistaken for seismic detection machines, or last generation's x86 home desktop running Quagga and grandma's health app :-). Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140718/07effbb9/attachment.pgp> From halflife4 at gmx.com Fri Jul 18 09:42:08 2014 From: halflife4 at gmx.com (Toney Mareo) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:42:08 +0200 Subject: Cable Company Network Upgrade Message-ID: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> Hello, I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 based cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the network All of these locations currently connecting to the internet through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to upgrade them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use various cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network has to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per customer. I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 cable modems should they buy in the future. And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. Have a nice day folks!   From rs at seastrom.com Fri Jul 18 18:05:30 2014 From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:05:30 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> (Michael Thomas's message of "Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:22:13 -0700") References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> Message-ID: <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> writes: > On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and >> watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... > > http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G > > $339! > > I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K" Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... -r From mike at mtcc.com Fri Jul 18 18:12:11 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:12:11 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> Message-ID: <53C9637B.40800@mtcc.com> On 07/18/2014 11:05 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> writes: > >> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and >>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... >> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G >> >> $339! >> >> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. > "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K" > > Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... > I just use it as a monitor for my compooter, so it doesn't bother me at all. Which is pretty much the only thing you can do with 4k these days... not much content available that i know of. Mike From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jul 18 18:12:17 2014 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 04:12:17 +1000 (EST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201407181812.s6IICHBc026309@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 19 Jul, 2014 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 503174 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 195916 Deaggregation factor: 2.57 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 248234 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 47325 Prefixes per ASN: 10.63 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 35997 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 16366 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6142 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 177 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 50404) 51 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1792 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 465 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 7045 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5186 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 18527 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 358 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 383 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2708501988 Equivalent to 161 /8s, 112 /16s and 117 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 73.2 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 73.2 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 96.7 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 172960 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 121509 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 35733 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.40 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 124851 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 51946 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4960 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 25.17 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1222 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 880 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1011 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 734619008 Equivalent to 43 /8s, 201 /16s and 101 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 85.9 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-63999, 131072-133631 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 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, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 169118 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 84233 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 170923 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 79771 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16337 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.46 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6115 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1690 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 40 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 142 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1090072608 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 249 /16s and 48 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.7 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 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 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, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 124194 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 62926 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.97 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 129002 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 81741 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17754 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 7.27 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8271 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2881 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 53 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2728 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 658555524 Equivalent to 39 /8s, 64 /16s and 194 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 95.7 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, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-202239 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 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, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 58677 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 10276 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.71 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 66246 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 29968 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2161 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.66 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 547 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 448 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.8 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1261 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 167012288 Equivalent to 9 /8s, 244 /16s and 103 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 99.5 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 262144-263679 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 11043 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2710 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.07 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 11769 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 4476 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 724 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 16.26 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 211 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 158 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 28 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 44 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 57803264 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 114 /16s and 2 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 57.4 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2963 11592 925 Korea Telecom 17974 2796 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 7545 2324 320 115 TPG Telecom Limited 4755 1858 392 197 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1654 1306 31 National Internet Backbone 9583 1308 103 532 Sify Limited 9498 1292 317 93 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 7552 1224 1098 14 Viettel Corporation 4808 1204 2149 370 CNCGROUP IP network China169 24560 1151 399 191 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 2948 3688 53 BellSouth.net Inc. 22773 2719 2940 141 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2448 1905 302 Windstream Communications Inc 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1735 1724 565 Charter Communications 4323 1628 1072 410 tw telecom holdings, inc. 30036 1460 310 623 Mediacom Communications Corp 701 1438 11187 726 MCI Communications Services, 6983 1387 817 312 ITC^Deltacom 22561 1306 406 233 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 34984 1718 265 276 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 20940 1430 555 1054 Akamai International B.V. 8402 1300 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 31148 1042 45 20 Freenet Ltd. 13188 1031 100 28 TOV "Bank-Inform" 8551 996 371 42 Bezeq International-Ltd 6849 818 356 26 JSC "Ukrtelecom" 6830 775 2335 431 Liberty Global Operations B.V 12479 743 796 59 France Telecom Espana SA 9198 588 346 28 JSC Kazakhtelecom Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3822 2031 102 NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S 10620 2917 472 222 Telmex Colombia S.A. 18881 2090 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 7303 1769 1180 231 Telecom Argentina S.A. 8151 1436 2967 405 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1118 434 61 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 6147 1089 373 28 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 977 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 27947 895 130 51 Telconet S.A 26615 860 2325 35 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 914 280 26 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 6713 673 744 37 Office National des Postes et 8452 592 958 13 TE-AS 36992 311 784 26 ETISALAT MISR 24835 306 144 9 Vodafone Data 3741 250 921 213 Internet Solutions 29571 233 22 17 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 37054 226 19 6 Data Telecom Service 15706 187 32 6 Sudatel (Sudan Telecom Co. Lt 12258 176 27 67 MWEB CONNECT (PROPRIETARY) LI Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3822 2031 102 NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S 4766 2963 11592 925 Korea Telecom 6389 2948 3688 53 BellSouth.net Inc. 10620 2917 472 222 Telmex Colombia S.A. 17974 2796 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 22773 2719 2940 141 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2448 1905 302 Windstream Communications Inc 7545 2324 320 115 TPG Telecom Limited 18881 2090 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 2948 2895 BellSouth.net Inc. 17974 2796 2724 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 10620 2917 2695 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 2719 2578 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 2324 2209 TPG Telecom Limited 7029 2448 2146 Windstream Communications Inc 18881 2090 2068 Global Village Telecom 4766 2963 2038 Korea Telecom 18566 2047 1869 MegaPath Corporation 4755 1858 1661 TATA Communications formerly Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.32.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.96.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 2828 XO Communications 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.160.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.161.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 6461 Abovenet Communicati 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.240.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.226.240.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.226.248.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 24.231.96.0/24 21548 MTO Telecom Inc. 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.76.48.0/21 36969 Malawi Telecommunications Lim 41.78.120.0/23 22351 INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE CORPO 41.78.180.0/23 37265 Neural Telecommunications Afr 41.78.236.0/24 37290 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.78.237.0/24 37290 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.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 /8:16 /9:13 /10:30 /11:91 /12:259 /13:498 /14:980 /15:1702 /16:13019 /17:7007 /18:11693 /19:24692 /20:35045 /21:37458 /22:54020 /23:47374 /24:267061 /25:835 /26:932 /27:394 /28:13 /29:18 /30:10 /31:1 /32:13 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 2002 2047 MegaPath Corporation 22773 1962 2719 Cox Communications Inc. 6389 1693 2948 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1304 1460 Mediacom Communications Corp 7029 1274 2448 Windstream Communications Inc 11492 1179 1231 CABLE ONE, INC. 6983 1095 1387 ITC^Deltacom 34984 1046 1718 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 10620 1024 2917 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22561 1003 1306 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1228 2:655 3:3 4:15 5:1038 6:19 8:713 12:1856 13:4 14:1100 15:15 16:2 17:40 18:21 20:37 23:897 24:1753 27:1772 31:1505 32:41 33:2 34:5 36:139 37:1818 38:951 39:7 40:207 41:2647 42:256 43:124 44:13 45:42 46:2084 47:24 49:725 50:813 52:12 54:46 55:5 56:3 57:29 58:1220 59:616 60:414 61:1581 62:1246 63:1857 64:4366 65:2291 66:4154 67:2045 68:1046 69:3341 70:888 71:440 72:2005 74:2627 75:322 76:411 77:1657 78:807 79:712 80:1308 81:1206 82:768 83:771 84:773 85:1318 86:426 87:1139 88:465 89:1783 90:138 91:5719 92:729 93:1753 94:2016 95:1607 96:497 97:360 98:1091 99:49 100:65 101:946 103:5306 104:61 105:34 106:181 107:573 108:592 109:2022 110:997 111:1346 112:672 113:866 114:797 115:1132 116:1084 117:973 118:1496 119:1407 120:406 121:846 122:2118 123:1428 124:1417 125:1543 128:589 129:338 130:359 131:670 132:416 133:162 134:320 135:74 136:299 137:287 138:365 139:166 140:225 141:388 142:568 143:437 144:504 145:107 146:651 147:488 148:895 149:387 150:347 151:712 152:450 153:220 154:312 155:516 156:355 157:340 158:250 159:913 160:333 161:566 162:1609 163:318 164:689 165:621 166:291 167:642 168:1063 169:124 170:1361 171:183 172:65 173:1503 174:715 175:606 176:1400 177:3266 178:2070 179:788 180:1775 181:1306 182:1602 183:529 184:723 185:1884 186:2909 187:1612 188:2144 189:1483 190:7677 191:660 192:7414 193:5507 194:4043 195:3531 196:1419 197:674 198:5109 199:5535 200:6333 201:2694 202:9147 203:8969 204:4591 205:2628 206:2969 207:2961 208:3956 209:3740 210:3128 211:1722 212:2313 213:2113 214:878 215:87 216:5550 217:1687 218:608 219:330 220:1284 221:628 222:357 223:593 End of report From jra at baylink.com Fri Jul 18 18:32:50 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <3EF9E92A-94E9-4EFB-A0B0-CA48DD3C8793@delong.com> Message-ID: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that > there is no such thing as "THE Internet". "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" -- Seth Breidbart. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 18 18:35:48 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:35:48 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote: > Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> writes: >> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and >>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G >> >> $339! >> >> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. > > "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K" > > Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... Hi Rob, An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did say he used it for doing software development. Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so I'm not sure where the harm would be there either. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Fri Jul 18 18:44:44 2014 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:44:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: Net Neutrality... Message-ID: <201407181844.TAA29039@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > I just use it as a monitor for my compooter, so it doesn't bother me at > all. Which is pretty much > the only thing you can do with 4k these days... not much content > available that i know of. Pretty much the only thing it will ever be good for. 4K doesn't look so good at 30Hz if things move - http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2013/12/high-frame-rate-at-the-ebu-uhdtv-voices-and-choices-workshop We're working with the industry in defining the UHD standard, 120Hz is being considered though we'd prefer a bit more. brandon From jra at baylink.com Fri Jul 18 18:49:02 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21448.10252.908408.924524@world.std.com> Message-ID: <19537949.6504.1405709342116.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users > have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 > or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about". Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering. Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3. Could you dig that up, Barry? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From contact at winterei.se Fri Jul 18 18:49:28 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:49:28 +0900 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C96C38.8050307@winterei.se> On 7/19/2014 午前 03:35, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote: >> Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> writes: >>> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >>>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and >>>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... >>> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G >>> >>> $339! >>> >>> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. >> "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K" >> >> Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... > Hi Rob, > > An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light > doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So > why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks > which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did > say he used it for doing software development. > > Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so > I'm not sure where the harm would be there either. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah. I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine. From cidr-report at potaroo.net Fri Jul 18 22:00:00 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:00:00 GMT Subject: The Cidr Report Message-ID: <201407182200.s6IM00bL086175@wattle.apnic.net> This report has been generated at Fri Jul 18 21:14:01 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 11-07-14 508685 284695 12-07-14 509206 284695 13-07-14 509206 286101 14-07-14 509322 286179 15-07-14 509529 286158 16-07-14 508666 286107 17-07-14 508348 286188 18-07-14 509180 285930 AS Summary 47680 Number of ASes in routing system 19320 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 3811 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS28573: NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 120495616 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 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'). --- 18Jul14 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 508775 285851 222924 43.8% All ASes AS28573 3811 233 3578 93.9% NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR AS6389 2948 82 2866 97.2% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.,US AS17974 2796 187 2609 93.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID AS22773 2715 552 2163 79.7% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US AS7029 2564 476 2088 81.4% WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US AS18881 2090 41 2049 98.0% Global Village Telecom,BR AS4766 2963 934 2029 68.5% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR AS7545 2341 666 1675 71.6% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited,AU AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation,US AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR AS10620 2917 1588 1329 45.6% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO AS4755 1858 591 1267 68.2% TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN AS4323 1642 426 1216 74.1% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US AS6983 1388 314 1074 77.4% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US AS22561 1306 242 1064 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.,US AS7552 1258 227 1031 82.0% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN AS6147 1089 147 942 86.5% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE AS9829 1654 767 887 53.6% BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN AS7738 977 169 808 82.7% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR AS24560 1151 344 807 70.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services,IN AS4808 1204 415 789 65.5% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN AS4788 1022 261 761 74.5% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet Service Provider,MY AS18101 945 187 758 80.2% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN Reliance Communications Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN AS8151 1444 696 748 51.8% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX AS11492 1231 499 732 59.5% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US AS26615 860 139 721 83.8% Tim Celular S.A.,BR AS701 1438 726 712 49.5% UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US AS9808 1047 335 712 68.0% CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication Co.Ltd.,CN AS855 771 62 709 92.0% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Inc.,CA AS27738 770 62 708 91.9% Ecuadortelecom S.A.,EC Total 52020 12368 39652 76.2% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 23.226.240.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 23.226.240.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 23.226.248.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 24.231.96.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 27.100.7.0/24 AS56096 41.76.48.0/21 AS36969 MTL-AS,MW 41.78.120.0/23 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 - INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE CORPORATION,US 41.78.180.0/23 AS37265 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.236.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.237.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.238.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.239.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.189.96.0/20 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.189.128.0/24 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.1.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.2.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.3.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.4.0/22 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.4.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.5.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.8.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.13.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.16.0/20 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.72.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.73.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.74.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.75.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.197.0.0/16 AS36934 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.223.208.0/22 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.193.160.0/19 AS24801 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.193.160.0/20 AS24801 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.193.176.0/20 AS24801 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.16.0/23 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.20.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.21.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.22.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.27.0/24 AS7046 RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 64.111.160.0/20 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.160.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.161.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.162.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.167.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.169.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.170.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.171.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.172.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.173.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.174.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.175.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 65.75.216.0/23 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.75.217.0/24 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.111.1.0/24 AS32258 SDNGLOBAL - SDN Global,US 66.6.176.0/20 AS13223 BBTECNETWORKS-HK RM18, 9/F., Kwan Yick Building Phase 1, 430-440A Des Voeux Rd. West.,HK 66.55.96.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.98.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.99.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.100.0/22 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.102.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.104.0/21 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.180.64.0/21 AS32558 ZEUTER - Zeuter Development Corporation,CA 66.187.240.0/20 AS14552 ACS-SOUTHEASTDATACENTER - Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,US 66.205.224.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 66.251.128.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.133.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.134.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.136.0/21 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.140.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.141.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.142.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A.,IT 72.19.0.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 74.112.100.0/22 AS16764 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.113.200.0/23 AS46939 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/22 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.53.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.55.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.115.124.0/23 AS46540 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.118.132.0/22 AS5117 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.212.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.214.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.121.24.0/22 AS36263 FORONA - Forona Technologies, Inc.,US 77.243.80.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.81.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.88.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.91.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.94.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.95.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 80.78.133.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/23 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.135.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.250.32.0/22 AS37106 ODUA-AS,NG 85.202.160.0/20 AS44404 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.24.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.26.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.28.0/22 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.207.8.0/21 AS3292 TDC TDC A/S,DK 91.193.60.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.195.66.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.197.36.0/22 AS43359 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.199.90.0/24 AS44330 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.209.115.0/24 AS31103 KEYWEB-AS Keyweb AG,DE 91.214.65.0/24 AS30822 MAGEAL-AS Private Enterprise Mageal,LT 91.228.160.0/24 AS56815 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.239.157.0/24 AS24958 TBSH The Bunker Secure Hosting Limited,GB 93.190.10.0/24 AS47254 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 95.215.140.0/22 AS48949 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 102.2.88.0/22 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.6.108.0/22 AS37986 TULIP Tulip Telecom Ltd.,IN 103.6.228.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.108.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.140.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.141.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.142.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.143.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.17.108.0/23 AS56301 MN-NDC-MN National Data Center building,MN 103.18.76.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.18.80.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK 103.18.81.0/24 AS13253 HKDNCL-AS Dot Gold Data Exchange Center,HK 103.18.92.0/22 AS13269 103.18.92.0/24 AS13269 103.18.94.0/24 AS13269 103.18.248.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.19.0.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.20.100.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.20.101.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.25.120.0/22 AS13280 103.248.88.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP 103.248.220.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP 103.249.156.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP 104.142.128.0/17 AS33353 GAIKAI - Gaikai, Inc.,US 104.152.160.0/21 AS54614 CIKTELECOM-CABLE - CIK Telecom INC,CA 104.152.184.0/21 AS31863 DACEN-2 - Centrilogic, Inc.,US 104.156.96.0/20 AS54858 AS-SBI - Condointernet.net,US 104.156.192.0/19 AS30279 VIRTUZO - Virtuzo,US 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 124.158.28.0/22 AS45857 142.147.62.0/24 AS3958 AIRCANADA - Air Canada,CA 151.216.64.0/19 AS58367 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 162.218.168.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 162.218.175.0/24 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 163.47.23.0/24 AS2907 SINET-AS Research Organization of Information and Systems, National Institute of Informatics,JP 166.93.0.0/16 AS23537 CRITIGEN - Micro Source, Inc.,US 172.85.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.87.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.88.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group),CN 176.111.168.0/22 AS50586 MACROSOLUTIONS MacroSolution SRL,RO 182.237.25.0/24 AS10201 DWL-AS-IN Dishnet Wireless Limited. Broadband Wireless,IN 185.28.180.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 190.3.160.0/21 AS27975 SYNAPSIS COLOMBIA SAS,CO 190.124.252.0/22 AS7303 Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR 192.9.0.0/16 AS11479 BRM-SUN-AS - Sun Microsystems, Inc,US 192.25.10.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.11.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.13.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.14.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.34.152.0/21 AS10835 VISIONARY - Visionary Communications, Inc.,US 192.75.23.0/24 AS2579 AS2579 - Alcatel-Lucent,US 192.75.239.0/24 AS23498 CDSI - COGECODATA,CA 192.84.24.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.124.252.0/22 AS680 DFN Verein zur Foerderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.,DE 192.131.233.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 192.149.81.0/24 AS14454 PERIMETER-ESECURITY - Perimeter eSecurity,US 192.154.32.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.154.64.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.166.32.0/20 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 192.245.195.0/24 AS7381 SUNGARDRS - SunGard Availability Services LP,US 192.252.252.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 193.9.59.0/24 AS1257 TELE2,SE 193.16.106.0/24 AS31539 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.16.145.0/24 AS31392 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.86.0/24 AS24751 MULTIFI-AS Jakobstadsnejdens Telefon Ab,FI 193.22.224.0/20 AS3322 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.238.0/23 AS62383 LDS-AS Lambrechts Data Services VOF,BE 193.26.213.0/24 AS31641 BYTEL-AS Bytel Ltd,GB 193.28.14.0/24 AS34309 LINK11 Link11 GmbH,DE 193.33.6.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.33.252.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.46.200.0/24 AS34243 WEBAGE Web Age Ltd,GB 193.93.6.0/23 AS35559 SOMEADDRESS Someaddress Networks Ltd,GB 193.111.229.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.149.2.0/23 AS15919 INTERHOST Servicios de Hosting en Internet S.A.,ES 193.160.16.0/22 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.161.157.0/24 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.164.152.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.178.196.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 193.186.193.0/24 AS158 ERI-AS - Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.,US 193.188.252.0/24 AS8697 JTC-AS8697 Jordan Telecommunications Company,JO 193.200.244.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.201.244.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.245.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.246.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.202.8.0/21 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.202.9.0/24 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.223.103.0/24 AS3248 SIL-AT Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT 193.227.109.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.227.236.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.243.166.0/24 AS44093 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.0.116.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.0.117.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.6.252.0/24 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 194.9.8.0/23 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.9.8.0/24 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.33.11.0/24 AS8943 JUMP Jump Networks Ltd.,GB 194.39.78.0/23 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 194.49.17.0/24 AS13135 CREW-AS Wieske's Crew GmbH,DE 194.60.88.0/21 AS5089 NTL Virgin Media Limited,GB 194.63.152.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.79.36.0/22 AS3257 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA,DE 194.88.6.0/24 AS35093 RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO 194.88.226.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.99.67.0/24 AS9083 CARPENET carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH,DE 194.126.152.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.126.219.0/24 AS34545 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.126.233.0/24 AS31235 SKIWEBCENTER-AS SKIWEBCENTER SARL,FR 194.126.251.0/24 AS50818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.146.35.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.146.36.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.150.214.0/23 AS30880 SPACEDUMP-AS SpaceDump IT AB,SE 194.156.179.0/24 AS3209 VODANET Vodafone GmbH,DE 194.180.25.0/24 AS21358 ATOS-ORIGIN-DE-AS Atos Information Technology GmbH,DE 194.187.24.0/22 AS8856 UKRNET UkrNet Ltd,UA 195.8.48.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.48.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.119.0/24 AS34304 TEENTELECOM Teen Telecom SRL,RO 195.39.252.0/23 AS29004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.42.232.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 195.47.242.0/24 AS9050 RTD ROMTELECOM S.A,RO 195.54.166.0/23 AS51131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.85.194.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.85.201.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.110.0.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.128.240.0/23 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 195.149.119.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.189.174.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.216.234.0/24 AS31309 NMV-AS New Media Ventures BVBA,BE 195.234.156.0/24 AS25028 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.242.182.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.244.18.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.245.98.0/23 AS48918 GLOBALWAYS GLOBALWAYS AG,DE 196.2.224.0/22 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 196.22.8.0/24 AS27822 Emerging Markets Communications de Argentina S.R.L,AR 196.22.11.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 196.45.0.0/21 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.45.10.0/24 AS26625 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, Inc.,US 198.74.11.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.13.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.38.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.39.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.40.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.192.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.163.214.0/24 AS21804 ACCESS-SK - Access Communications Co-operative Limited,CA 198.163.215.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.163.216.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 198.176.208.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.209.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.210.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.211.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange Services,HK 198.252.165.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.166.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.167.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.168.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.169.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.254.96.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.96.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.100.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.104.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.85.9.0/24 AS852 ASN852 - TELUS Communications Inc.,CA 199.88.52.0/22 AS17018 QTS-SACRAMENTO-1 - Quality Investment Properties Sacramento, LLC,US 199.116.200.0/21 AS22830 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.120.150.0/24 AS30036 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp,US 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 200.1.112.0/24 AS29754 GO2TEL - GO2TEL.COM INC.,US 200.58.248.0/21 AS27849 200.81.48.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.49.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.50.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 202.8.106.0/24 AS9530 SHINSEGAE-AS SHINSEGAE I&C Co., Ltd.,KR 202.21.158.0/23 AS23728 202.21.158.0/24 AS23728 202.21.159.0/24 AS23728 202.53.138.0/24 AS4058 CITICTEL-CPC-AS4058 CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited,HK 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN 202.158.251.0/24 AS9255 CONNECTPLUS-AS Singapore Telecom,SG 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 203.160.48.0/21 AS38008 203.189.116.0/22 AS45606 203.189.116.0/24 AS45606 203.189.117.0/24 AS45606 203.189.118.0/24 AS45606 203.189.119.0/24 AS45606 204.10.88.0/21 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 204.10.94.0/23 AS30097 NUWAVE - NuWave,US 204.15.208.0/22 AS13706 COMPLETEWEBNET - CompleteWeb.Net LLC,US 204.16.96.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.97.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.98.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.99.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.69.144.0/24 AS27283 RJF-INTERNET - Raymond James Financial, Inc.,US 204.106.16.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 204.155.28.0/22 AS40925 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.187.11.0/24 AS51113 ELEKTA-AS Elekta,GB 204.225.173.0/24 AS6407 PRIMUS-AS6407 - Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.,CA 205.159.44.0/24 AS40157 ADESA-CORP-AS - ADESA Corp,US 205.166.231.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 205.211.160.0/24 AS30045 UHN-ASN - University Health Network,CA 206.51.35.0/24 AS15078 Telelatina S.A.,AR 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company,US 206.223.224.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 207.2.120.0/21 AS6221 USCYBERSITES - US Cybersites, Inc,US 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc.,US 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc.,US 207.254.128.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.128.0/24 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.136.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 208.66.64.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.65.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.66.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.67.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.67.132.0/22 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 208.68.180.0/22 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.69.192.0/23 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.69.195.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.75.152.0/21 AS32146 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.20.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.21.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.164.0/24 AS22659 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.166.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.83.53.0/24 AS40569 YGOMI-AS - Ygomi LLC,US 208.84.232.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.234.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.237.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.238.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.93.144.0/21 AS30693 SERVERHUB-PHOENIX - Eonix Corporation,US 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 209.193.112.0/20 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications Company, LLC,US 209.209.51.0/24 AS18687 MPOWER-2 - MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,US 209.209.224.0/19 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.248.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.250.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.251.0/24 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.212.63.0/24 AS16467 ASN-NEXTWEB-R1 - Nextweb, Inc,US 209.234.112.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.114.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.116.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.117.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.118.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.119.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.120.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.121.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.122.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.64.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.65.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.66.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.67.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.68.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.69.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.70.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.71.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.72.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.73.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.74.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.75.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.76.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.77.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.78.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.255.128.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 213.255.144.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 216.12.163.0/24 AS26627 AS-PILOSOFT - Pilosoft, Inc.,US 216.14.64.0/20 AS14728 MW-INDIANA - Mercury Wireless, LLC,US 216.146.0.0/19 AS11915 TELWEST-NETWORK-SVCS-STATIC - TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS LLC,US 216.152.24.0/22 AS22773 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US 216.170.96.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.101.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.104.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.105.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.234.132.0/24 AS14545 ADR-DRIVING-RECORDS - AMERICAN DRIVING RECORDS, INC.,US Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org 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 Jul 18 22:00:01 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:00:01 GMT Subject: BGP Update Report Message-ID: <201407182200.s6IM01Xl086189@wattle.apnic.net> BGP Update Report Interval: 10-Jul-14 -to- 17-Jul-14 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS12858 134921 5.4% 7936.5 -- MYNET A.S.,TR 2 - AS9829 68571 2.7% 47.4 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN 3 - AS1659 48232 1.9% 191.4 -- ERX-TANET-ASN1 Tiawan Academic Network (TANet) Information Center,TW 4 - AS38141 47183 1.9% 5242.6 -- CITRAMEDIA-AS-ID PT. Citramedia Network,ID 5 - AS14287 42118 1.7% 7019.7 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 6 - AS8402 33996 1.4% 81.3 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom",RU 7 - AS57320 30534 1.2% 1796.1 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 8 - AS28573 23109 0.9% 6.8 -- NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 9 - AS38144 22360 0.9% 486.1 -- JALAWAVE-AS-ID PT Jalawave Cakrawala,ID 10 - AS647 22018 0.9% 185.0 -- DNIC-ASBLK-00616-00665 - DoD Network Information Center,US 11 - AS23752 20072 0.8% 218.2 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 12 - AS7552 18269 0.7% 14.9 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN 13 - AS4775 15805 0.6% 687.2 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 14 - AS26769 15496 0.6% 227.9 -- BANDCON - Bandcon,US 15 - AS47883 14741 0.6% 124.9 -- KKTCELL-AS KIBRIS MOBILE TELEKOMUNIKASYON LTD.,TR 16 - AS47794 14113 0.6% 137.0 -- ATHEEB-AS Etihad Atheeb Telecom Company,SA 17 - AS25620 12541 0.5% 142.5 -- COTAS LTDA.,BO 18 - AS25184 12342 0.5% 94.2 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 19 - AS45899 12278 0.5% 28.9 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp,VN 20 - AS13489 10558 0.4% 23.8 -- EPM Telecomunicaciones S.A. E.S.P.,CO TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS18135 8582 0.3% 8582.0 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP 2 - AS6459 8423 0.3% 8423.0 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 3 - AS12858 134921 5.4% 7936.5 -- MYNET A.S.,TR 4 - AS14287 42118 1.7% 7019.7 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 5 - AS38141 47183 1.9% 5242.6 -- CITRAMEDIA-AS-ID PT. Citramedia Network,ID 6 - AS34873 3513 0.1% 3513.0 -- IGIF-AS ACSS - Administracao Central do Sistema de Saude, I.P.,PT 7 - AS26661 9288 0.4% 3096.0 -- JCPS-ASN - Jeffco Public Schools,US 8 - AS54465 8665 0.3% 2888.3 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 9 - AS3 2103 0.1% 5212.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 10 - AS23074 5972 0.2% 1990.7 -- Petr�leo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras,BR 11 - AS57320 30534 1.2% 1796.1 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 12 - AS33643 1731 0.1% 1731.0 -- JELLYBELLY - Jelly Belly Candy Company,US 13 - AS59280 4814 0.2% 1203.5 -- IDNIC-KAILIGLOBAL-AS-ID PT. Kaili Global,ID 14 - AS3 1079 0.0% 5517.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 15 - AS57201 1018 0.0% 1018.0 -- EDF-AS Estonian Defence Forces,EE 16 - AS10445 5301 0.2% 883.5 -- HTG - Huntleigh Telcom,US 17 - AS25003 9265 0.4% 842.3 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat Ltd,IL 18 - AS3 9615 0.4% 134.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 19 - AS4775 15805 0.6% 687.2 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 20 - AS5313 680 0.0% 680.0 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05120-05376 - DoD Network Information Center,US TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 176.97.96.0/24 14631 0.6% AS57320 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 2 - 176.97.111.0/24 14631 0.6% AS57320 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 3 - 78.109.192.0/20 10068 0.4% AS25184 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 4 - 192.58.232.0/24 9609 0.4% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 5 - 185.17.128.0/24 9494 0.4% AS3 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 6 - 192.115.44.0/22 9228 0.3% AS25003 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat Ltd,IL 7 - 202.70.88.0/21 9156 0.3% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 8 - 202.70.64.0/21 8712 0.3% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 9 - 206.152.15.0/24 8663 0.3% AS54465 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 10 - 42.83.48.0/20 8582 0.3% AS18135 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP 11 - 208.70.20.0/22 8452 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 12 - 208.73.244.0/22 8424 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 13 - 205.247.12.0/24 8423 0.3% AS6459 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 14 - 216.162.0.0/20 8418 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 15 - 208.88.232.0/22 8412 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 16 - 208.78.116.0/22 8408 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org eof-list at ripe.net apops at apops.net routing-wg at ripe.net afnog at afnog.org From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 18 22:45:29 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <30CAD71C-3C8A-4C55-A99F-BC6E4BA60D6C@delong.com> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet". > > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" > -- Seth Breidbart. > Note that the sentence is incomplete and as soon as you put something after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand side. Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly variable and more subjective than you may realize. What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace collision avoidance and address distribution. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 18 22:48:48 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:48:48 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seas! trom.com> <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <246195A8-0AB6-43B4-8BA8-B6B9442816DC@delong.com> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote: >> Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> writes: >>> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >>>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and >>>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit.... >>> >>> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G >>> >>> $339! >>> >>> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*. >> >> "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K" >> >> Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3... 2... 1... > > Hi Rob, > > An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light > doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So > why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks > which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did > say he used it for doing software development. Well... Yes and no. An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, that part is true. However, the brightness of any particular color of any particular pixel in any LED screen is usually controlled by a process known as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) where the LED actually turns on and off several thousand times per second and modifications of the ratio between the on-time and off-time in those cycles are used to control the apparent brightness. As such, the LEDs are actually turning on and off (flickering) much much faster than any CRT would, but it's not the same kind of flicker. However, most "LED Screens" aren't actually LED screens, most of them are LED backlit CRT Screens. (I didn't look at the specs on this one in detail, so I don't actually know which type it is). This gets further complicated by technologies such as selective dimming, etc. Owen From jra at baylink.com Fri Jul 18 23:12:02 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <30CAD71C-3C8A-4C55-A99F-BC6E4BA60D6C@delong.com> Message-ID: <15828942.6506.1405725122355.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > > > >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize > >> that > >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet". > > > > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, > > transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by > > an IP packet from'" > > -- Seth Breidbart. > > Note that the sentence is incomplete It actually isn't, no. The quoted segment is, as noted, a *relationship*; ie: a function applied to a domain of IP addresses to produce a range of other IP addresses; it's a *function*, and the closure applies it to produce a result. > and as soon as you put something > after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different > answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you > put at the right hand side. > > Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity > and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly > variable and more subjective than you may realize. Not really. > What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different > equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of > them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated > networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying > extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate > in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace > collision avoidance and address distribution. Hence "transitive". It's not really an accident that "transit" comes from the same root. "The Internet" for all the purposes we generally use it here is composed of all the machines with publicly routable IP addresses between which you can move packets, regardless of what they're hooked to, or who they pay; that was the point Seth made in a much more mathematical-sounding way in his oft-quoted statement. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From joelja at bogus.com Fri Jul 18 19:09:05 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:09:05 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k17L-zwf3v_EZiXR6FdQHzhj0uDzgeRU-k6qspt1JZTOA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BFB74@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <201407151513.JAA01526@mail.lariat.net> <CAGFn2k17L-zwf3v_EZiXR6FdQHzhj0uDzgeRU-k6qspt1JZTOA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C970D1.7080306@bogus.com> On 7/15/14, 10:04 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > >> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote: >> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And >> caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. > > > BTW, with the move from HTTP to HTTPS due to privacy concerns, every cache > efficiency you take for granted will be lost in a few years time... HLS over https is already becoming common enough in the case where you need to embedd it in an otherwise secure page. one assumes that will eventually be ubiquitous. > > Rubens > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 308 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140718/3273d21c/attachment.pgp> From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 18 23:22:04 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:22:04 -0400 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <246195A8-0AB6-43B4-8BA8-B6B9442816DC@delong.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> <246195A8-0AB6-43B4-8BA8-B6B9442816DC@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXRdWhraUdb5nJbMKN26reWmPpUWUKEb5c17Gekh0raTQ@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >> An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light >> doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So >> why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks >> which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did >> say he used it for doing software development. > >However, the brightness of any particular color of any particular >pixel in any LED screen is usually controlled by a process known >as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) where the LED actually turns > on and off several thousand times per second and modifications > of the ratio between the on-time and off-time in those cycles are >used to control the apparent brightness. > > However, most "LED Screens" aren't actually LED screens, most of them are > LED backlit CRT Screens. (I didn't look at the specs on this one in detail, so > I don't actually know which type it is). Hi Owen, You probably meant LED backlit LCD (liquid crystal display) screens, yes? As opposed to an LCD panel backlit with fluorescent tubes? LCDs don't have a flicker rate either, unless they're particularly badly implemented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED-backlit_LCD_display Interesting point about PWM controlling the LED brightness, although that won't be tied to screen's overall refresh rate either. The pulse timing will be the same whether your overall refresh rate is 30 fps or 300. (And for those of you who don't bother turning off your flat panel monitors at night because what the heck, they won't burn in right?... That's a mistake. You won't hurt the LCD but the cold cathode fluorescent tube backlights are wearing out.) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 23:26:03 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:26:03 +0000 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <53C96C38.8050307@winterei.se> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net> <80233.1405631724@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <53C83E85.4070406@mtcc.com> <8661iuwnit.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> <53C96C38.8050307@winterei.se> Message-ID: <CAMfXtQzY_aLE6Fg-eMLjXJ4LeiYuDMJwgVtNv0Y0mayMJNDQeA@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Paul S. <contact at winterei.se> wrote: .... > > For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah. > > I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine. This is way off topic, but .... This topic was covered back in the beginning of the year at: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers and the followup at: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers-redux The conclusion (in the case) was that for devs, the goods outweigh the bads. As always, your mileage will vary, and some settling occurred during transport. Note, too that Dell, Asus, and Lenovo have newer 4K models out there that address some of the issues (I have explicitly tried to avoid finding the reviews because I do not want to be forced, forced I say, to buy a 4K monitor). From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 18 23:28:00 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:28:00 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <3EF9E92A-94E9-4EFB-A0B0-CA48DD3C8793@delong.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> <3EF9E92A-94E9-4EFB-A0B0-CA48DD3C8793@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVxcOe1vP8tvTbpmnPuzPVeuzArdP14-Ahi62uCob=VkQ@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > But the part that will really bend your mind is when > you realize that there is no such thing as > "THE Internet". Hi Owen, Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities (cells) operating cooperatively and competitively in many interesting ways all based on the same core "code," but I have to think you'd take offense if I said there was no such thing as "Owen Delong." Poor Internet can't get no respect... Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 18 23:25:45 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:25:45 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <15828942.6506.1405725122355.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <15828942.6506.1405725122355.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <F497DEA6-2247-496B-841E-CF9E6D9B252C@delong.com> On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:12 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > >> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> >>> >>>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize >>>> that >>>> there is no such thing as "THE Internet". >>> >>> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, >>> transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by >>> an IP packet from'" >>> -- Seth Breidbart. >> >> Note that the sentence is incomplete > > It actually isn't, no. > > The quoted segment is, as noted, a *relationship*; ie: a function applied > to a domain of IP addresses to produce a range of other IP addresses; it's > a *function*, and the closure applies it to produce a result. > >> and as soon as you put something >> after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different >> answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you >> put at the right hand side. >> >> Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity >> and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly >> variable and more subjective than you may realize. > > Not really. > >> What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different >> equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of >> them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated >> networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying >> extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate >> in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace >> collision avoidance and address distribution. > > Hence "transitive". It's not really an accident that "transit" comes > from the same root. > > "The Internet" for all the purposes we generally use it here is composed > of all the machines with publicly routable IP addresses between which you > can move packets, regardless of what they're hooked to, or who they pay; > that was the point Seth made in a much more mathematical-sounding way > in his oft-quoted statement. And my point is that when you look at it in detail, there's no such thing. There are many hosts which have public IP addresses which can reach different subsets of "the internet" than other hosts which also have public IP addresses and can talk to each other. It is very easy to choose a selection of hosts and be unable to solve that function with a single solution set for the entire set of hosts, yet by any vernacular definition of "the internet", all of the hosts in question would be "on the internet". That's my point. The devil is in the details, but in reality, the internet is much more precarious, variable, and generally a convenient term of art for something that mostly otherwise defies description. In fact, I've always loved the description of "You can tell how much someone understands the detailed workings of the internet by what amazes them." Almost no detailed knowledge: Amazed by everything one can do. Some detailed knowledge: Amazed by all the different places one can reach and how much information is available. Near complete knowledge: Amazed that it works at all. Owen From chris.thompson at solutioninc.com Fri Jul 18 18:33:39 2014 From: chris.thompson at solutioninc.com (Chris R. Thompson) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:33:39 -0300 Subject: Cable Company Network Upgrade In-Reply-To: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> References: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> Message-ID: <52D34E82B0221340B7B5A9A39DD70FEC04AEF46D@exchange.solutioninc.com> I think you oversubscribed... 10,000 to 1 seems a bit steep. On 07/18/2014 06:42 AM, Toney Mareo wrote: Hello, I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 based cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the network All of these locations currently connecting to the internet through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to upgrade them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use various cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network has to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per customer. I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 cable modems should they buy in the future. And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. Have a nice day folks! -- Christopher Thompson | Client Care | SolutionInc Limited Office: +1.902.420-0077 | Fax: +1.902.420.0233 Email: chris.thompson at solutioninc.com Website: www.solutioninc.com <http://www.solutioninc.com/> SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access With operations in more than 45 countries worldwide, SolutionInc is an established global leader in Internet, centralized hotspot connectivity, billing and management solutions. SolutionInc provides software and services to the hospitality and telecommunications industries through its award-winning, patented technology software products: SolutionIP(tm) and SolutionIP(tm) Enterprise. Through 700,000+ touch points, SolutionIP(tm) allows people to easily and securely connect to the Internet from locations such as hotel rooms, convention centres, universities, restaurants and airports. Patent Information <http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/> If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at 902 420 0077 or reply by e-mail to the sender and destroy the original communication. Thank you. From snoble at sonn.com Fri Jul 18 23:34:00 2014 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:34:00 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <FAB54096-3117-4B43-B27E-38FAA487D6EB@puck.nether.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> <37C5AE02-85A7-4DDC-ABF6-A7C3ABC5B780@gmail.com> <FAB54096-3117-4B43-B27E-38FAA487D6EB@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <CAJjtGx=BSA3_vF2sWDrRv0SCuD6jeuzxidqLxE=9zdo7zuM_LA@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jared, I know you will see the irony in my next statement.. Brett: you should talk to level 3 again, they are looking to connect to anyone to help with Netflix connectivity. http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/ The above URL is a great place to start. On Jul 17, 2014 5:21 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:48 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass <nanog at brettglass.com> wrote: > >> > >> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote: > >> > >>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly > south. What conversations have you had with them?... > >> > >> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate > several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. > Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless > (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their > building, which sits on rented land). > > > > Local fiber provider? How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in > Laramie? > > > > And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem. There are > a bunch. I can recommend one privately if you can't find one. > > > > Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only > does not scale. > > The problem is partly a technological one. If you have a fiber span from > east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi > amplifier. That OEO cost isn't "very high", but hitting every city like > that becomes expensive quickly. This is why your 10G from EQUINIX-SJ to > EQUNIX-ASH costs the same as the 10G loop from the DC to your local office. > The cost is the OEO ends. If you're not in a fiber rich environment you > are screwed. I have at&t fiber less than 1200 feet from me but they do not > offer any non-dialtone services in my area. I'm all-poles to the end of > the new comcast segment as well but due to a mid-part that doesn't have the > density required to meet their metrics there continue to be only fixed > wireless choices here. > > Others have suggested the UBNT gear. I'm using it myself, but I'll say.. > it still leaves a lot to be desired. It's mostly meant for use in less > developed countries. Their latest 5Ghz access gear often takes 6-12 months > to get FCC certified to operate in the full 5ghz band. With the recent > opening all the way down to 5.1 this spring with the FCC that certification > process restarted. They are great for hopping short distances at high > speeds in the US, but are very susceptible to interference. (The NanoBeam, > now PowerBeam is a bit better). > > my backhaul is 3 miles and works well for my use case. Cheaper than the > T1 before and higher speeds. There's a lot of people in wispa around the > edges you can find doing things, and many others doing it that aren't in > wispa. Most are small businesses (Some are larger) and suffer from poor > business choices, but the biggest problem I see is lack of ability to get > high speed access as Brett is commenting. Prices may be low at the major > DCs but out in these areas expect $10/Mb or more, sometimes not including > loop. > > - Jared From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 18 23:34:39 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:34:39 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVxcOe1vP8tvTbpmnPuzPVeuzArdP14-Ahi62uCob=VkQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <11769418.5816.1405022503550.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53BF407D.5020604@meetinghouse.net> <53BF5E19.8000903@jima.us> <CAEmG1=priG3Cu6rg2s=RZFcWW=0G=zjokPAw565ROXis=uq7Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYy-J=cEPp2Yz9nza9oz98++eP0_mdkJkCtxxMZWoOng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oO7_VisQ=+uFiGQAozgVg_d9T+vmtHdrGSLx5DCEpvzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRyYiEW0Qc_aVFoScUYZFHo_HLf46M0hkdj3S5o+n3gGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qZg-=f9y2SbptYn6xNbCt1RBA49-3AQ9uyrndCbtgQug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzQ3O9oO96WqBst+KNp7K-2biPLEcYjFyTK4FzsB_E4hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oo55++-Ye2V_VwdkrXv630U1iwRWxcrDFAda9D7USpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54B8C0F@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <CAAAwwbWJFgt7LaNCXJ=XTA6yc4FivGciBCwrM1ra0XhG7Bat=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <53C0A360.6040608@meetinghouse.net> <m2sim72rzq.wl%randy@psg.com> <21441.46196.112163.121547@world.std.com> <53C3F47A.3090105@dcrocker.net> <3EF9E92A-94E9-4EFB-A! 0B0-CA48DD3C8793@delong.com> <CAP-guGVxcOe1vP8tvTbpmnPuzPVeuzArdP14-Ahi62uCob=VkQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <D8D566A7-7741-4062-9A09-851EC6516647@delong.com> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control (one brain). Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it. There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet". Owen On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:28 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when >> you realize that there is no such thing as >> "THE Internet". > > Hi Owen, > > Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities > (cells) operating cooperatively and competitively in many interesting > ways all based on the same core "code," but I have to think you'd take > offense if I said there was no such thing as "Owen Delong." > > Poor Internet can't get no respect... > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From fred at cisco.com Sat Jul 19 00:32:18 2014 From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker (fred)) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:32:18 +0000 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <BDA9A6F2-E2FB-411B-93CD-189E2FCD3D8C@cisco.com> On Jul 14, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do > with Internet access. And there are a number of ISPs with multiple ASNs. If you look up the history of the term, "Autonomous System" is used without definition in most of its earlier RFCs, such as 820, 827, and 1105. In short, though, it is a network that connects to other networks using a routing protocol such as EGP or eBGP. The best formal definition I have seen involves "a collection of physical networks under common administration which are reachable from the rest of the Internet by a common route." The quote is from RFC 1000 and refers to the domain of a prefix, but it's pretty close. An "Autonomous System Number" is a creature of EGP or BGP Routing, and identifies such a system. If you look at http://bgp.potaroo.net/as6447/ and search for “AS numbers”, and you happen to be looking at exactly this instant (it changes), you’ll find that AS 6447 sees 47879 individual AS numbers in the Internet, of which 40339 show up *only* as origins (and therefore have to do with the AS a source or destination of traffic), 236 *never* show up as end last AS in an AS Path (and therefore are *always* transit), and 7304 that are sometimes origin and sometimes transit. To my small mind, an AS that functions as an ISP if highly likely to show up as a transit network, and an AS that never shows up as transit is very likely to be multihomed or to have justified its AS number on the basis of plans to multihome. Of course, one will also find that 30134 AS’s are origin AS’s visible through exactly one AS path, which says that at this instant they’re not actually multihomed. No, AS != ISP. An AS is a network that needs to be identifiable in global routing but would be entirely reachable even if it had exactly one link with some other network. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140719/852c6f6b/attachment.pgp> From jra at baylink.com Sat Jul 19 00:54:09 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <D8D566A7-7741-4062-9A09-851EC6516647@delong.com> Message-ID: <22606585.6512.1405731248974.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual > central control (one brain). Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes *wide* use of distributed processing. > Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it. All of them, then, I guess. > There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my > point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no > particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet". I can point to any jack that is part of it, and say it's "The Internet" (note, please, capitalization) and be describing it accurately. This is not an issue of engineering; it's one of nomenclature and taxonomy. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Sat Jul 19 00:55:42 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAJjtGx=BSA3_vF2sWDrRv0SCuD6jeuzxidqLxE=9zdo7zuM_LA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5677256.6514.1405731342653.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Noble" <snoble at sonn.com> > I know you will see the irony in my next statement.. > > Brett: you should talk to level 3 again, they are looking to connect > to anyone to help with Netflix connectivity. > > http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/ It was suggested to me tonight by a cow-orker that we ought to start a Kickstarter to buy Verizon a 10G card for their peering router with L3. I think that's a marvelous idea, though it did take a few minutes to land. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From george.herbert at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 02:20:22 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:20:22 -0700 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <FAB54096-3117-4B43-B27E-38FAA487D6EB@puck.nether.net> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> <37C5AE02-85A7-4DDC-ABF6-A7C3ABC5B780@gmail.com> <FAB54096-3117-4B43-B27E-38FAA487D6EB@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <5075D5BA-C920-4F83-98A5-60B40B22763E@gmail.com> > On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > > The problem is partly a technological one. If you have a fiber span from east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi amplifier. Almost certainly, most of the fiber going through the building just hits an amplifier (or nothing and isn't broken out there). Yes. But they quoted a price for access, and some research turned up signs other people are doing big fiber out of that location, so my assumption at this point is that at least one pair each direction down the fiber is terminating in some router there. Possibly a fiber level wave device but seems more likely a router. Unless that assumption is not true, this comes down to "We don't want your antenna on our roof*, come in via fiber like everyone else" and not having met the right Layer 3 reseller yet. It's not sounding at all like "we have to break open a fiber for you and put in a router". (The rest of this indirectly aimed back at Brett, not Jared ) It's not 1995. Even little ISPs need to get aware and step their game up. Treating transit or uplink like a 1995 problem IS a short road to damnation now. Seriously. The net is changing. The customers are changing, the customers uses and expectations are changing. Change with it, or step out of the way. You are not an exception because you're rural. You've just got a density and size lag. That is temporary at best. Keep up. This is critical national telecommunications infrastructure. Modern teens have mostly never used landline phones and are not OK with inadequate bandwidth at home or on the road. Being in Laramie is not a shield against change. * probably expands to "...you aren't big enough for me to bother working with my facility staff and filling out the paperwork to get an exception or lease amendment or permit and let you put an antenna on our roof, sorry", but this is an educated guess not informed. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 03:43:33 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:43:33 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <22606585.6512.1405731248974.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <D8D566A7-7741-4062-9A09-851EC6516647@delong.com> <22606585.6512.1405731248974.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQtu9bc0TszU2-cDFs78J-kpY_EE9XPmsQiD9cd-+vz3g@mail.gmail.com> On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > > > My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual > > central control (one brain). > > Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes > *wide* use of distributed processing. > Yes. > > Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it. > > All of them, then, I guess. > This is why most of us cannot stop cancer by willing the cells to stop dividing. > > There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my > > point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no > > particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet". > > I can point to any jack that is part of it, and say it's "The Internet" > (note, please, capitalization) and be describing it accurately. > > This is not an issue of engineering; it's one of nomenclature and > taxonomy. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 07:43:21 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:43:21 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAHsqw9uWzeMPrKq0GUtbLvHs_47wEeudGZkWZCBOQNUG_7B_iA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9uWzeMPrKq0GUtbLvHs_47wEeudGZkWZCBOQNUG_7B_iA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXacEBY85Tqa34A=+RUPBfViS1cdu=ove4SUAB508pbcyg@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Yeah, I need to turn on and off overtime, but I'm getting my own ASN very soon so that shouldn't be a problem soon! :) but how would I go about turning off a location at a certain time? Thanks! On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > Wow -- be careful playing with public eBGP sessions unless you know > what you're doing. It can affect the entire Internet. > > Since you're just connecting to a single upstream ISP, you wont > qualify for a public AS number. So, you'll have to work with your > upstream ISP to agree on a private AS number you can use. > You will be setting up an eBGP session (which is a session between two > different AS numbers, as opposed to iBGP, wherein the AS numbers are > the same). > > As for running BGP on a dedicated server, it'll depend on the OS in > use. Assuming Linux, take a look at Quagga, BIRD, and ExaBGP. > http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/ > http://bird.network.cz/ > https://code.google.com/p/exabgp/ > > > It may be a *lot* easier for you to just have your upstream ISP > announce your IP space, and route it to your dedicated server, unless > you need the ability to turn it off and on over time. > > Cheers, > jof > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Abuse Contact > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how > to > > set those up or which one I would need. > > > > Any help would be appreciated. > > > > > > Thanks! > From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 07:44:56 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:44:56 -0700 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? Message-ID: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? Thanks! From contact at winterei.se Sat Jul 19 07:48:17 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:48:17 +0900 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXacEBY85Tqa34A=+RUPBfViS1cdu=ove4SUAB508pbcyg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9uWzeMPrKq0GUtbLvHs_47wEeudGZkWZCBOQNUG_7B_iA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXacEBY85Tqa34A=+RUPBfViS1cdu=ove4SUAB508pbcyg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CA22C1.7000203@winterei.se> I believe you'll find that all of this gets a lot easier if you try to understand how layer 3 routing itself works instead of asking sparodic questions one at a time. I recommend picking up a layer 3 routing book for the platform of your choice and going through the basics. On 7/19/2014 午後 04:43, Abuse Contact wrote: > Hi, > Yeah, I need to turn on and off overtime, but I'm getting my own ASN very > soon so that shouldn't be a problem soon! :) > but how would I go about turning off a location at a certain time? > > > Thanks! > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > >> Wow -- be careful playing with public eBGP sessions unless you know >> what you're doing. It can affect the entire Internet. >> >> Since you're just connecting to a single upstream ISP, you wont >> qualify for a public AS number. So, you'll have to work with your >> upstream ISP to agree on a private AS number you can use. >> You will be setting up an eBGP session (which is a session between two >> different AS numbers, as opposed to iBGP, wherein the AS numbers are >> the same). >> >> As for running BGP on a dedicated server, it'll depend on the OS in >> use. Assuming Linux, take a look at Quagga, BIRD, and ExaBGP. >> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/ >> http://bird.network.cz/ >> https://code.google.com/p/exabgp/ >> >> >> It may be a *lot* easier for you to just have your upstream ISP >> announce your IP space, and route it to your dedicated server, unless >> you need the ability to turn it off and on over time. >> >> Cheers, >> jof >> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Abuse Contact >> <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a >>> /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am >>> clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want >>> to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, >>> etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner >>> routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how >> to >>> set those up or which one I would need. >>> >>> Any help would be appreciated. >>> >>> >>> Thanks! From contact at winterei.se Sat Jul 19 07:51:26 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:51:26 +0900 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CA237E.3040404@winterei.se> This is done by performing some sort of filtering / acling, be it proactive or reactive on the traffic before it's handed off to you. How exactly EQX' solution is engineered is a question best left for their sales engineers or similar people to answer, though. On 7/19/2014 午後 04:44, Abuse Contact wrote: > Hi, > I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large > companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, > how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or > whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > > Thanks! From me at anuragbhatia.com Sat Jul 19 12:09:40 2014 From: me at anuragbhatia.com (Anurag Bhatia) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:39:40 +0530 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <201407180239.16297.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407082256.26816.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> <201407180239.16297.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <CAJ0+aXY=e9m3OxkOsZ1F+gq4P2jo3Nn3CJ2AvCKh19qnDna-OQ@mail.gmail.com> Thanks everyone for insightful answers! On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote: > On Monday, July 14, 2014 07:32:43 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > > > Mark, > > > > BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is > > targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so > > there¹s no forwarding towards any destination filtered > > out from RIB. > > Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone > > and in case of incorrect configuration would result in > > blackholing. > > As with every feature on a router, you need to know what > you're doing to make it work. > > Don't blame the cows if you turn on knobs you have no > business using, or don't care to learn the risks of. > > We use this feature in our network successfully, because we > know what we're doing, and care to understand the risks. > > If I use it in a manner other than previously directed > (while I know it's a use-case, I've never heard of any > vendor saying it ONLY targeted out-of-path route reflectors, > but then again, I don't generally walk vendor corridors for > the scoop), well, welcome to the Internet; where core > routers can either be behemoths that move air the size of a > football field and could be mistaken for seismic detection > machines, or last generation's x86 home desktop running > Quagga and grandma's health app :-). > > Mark. > -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> Skype: anuragbhatia.com PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2 From bill at herrin.us Sat Jul 19 16:04:43 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:04:43 -0400 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to > set those up or which one I would need. Howdy, Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 16:53:59 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:53:59 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router so I can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how > to > > set those up or which one I would need. > > Howdy, > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > From ops.lists at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 16:59:27 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:29:27 +0530 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, BTW? On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router so I > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I > have a > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I > want > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their > IPs, > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how > > to > > > set those up or which one I would need. > > > > Howdy, > > > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. > > > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > -- > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > > > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jul 19 16:59:16 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:59:16 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700." <30CAD71C-3C8A-4C55-A99F-BC6E4BA60D6C@delong.com> References: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <30CAD71C-3C8A-4C55-A99F-BC6E4BA60D6C@delong.com> Message-ID: <56573.1405789156@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700, Owen DeLong said: > On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitiv e, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" > > -- Seth Breidbart. > Note that the sentence is incomplete and as soon as you put something after > "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the > left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand side. Which is why Jay said "closure" - that means (basically) "across *all* meaningful right hand sides, plus nay *new* ones that pop up as previously undiscovered left hand sides along the way. And yes, this definition *does* mean that if you find a reachable webserver in a corporate DMZ, and that webserver can reach machines that are behind the corporate firewall, those supposedly firewalled machines are "on the internet" as well. Which is what your security geek was trying to explain to you :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140719/106c2dc0/attachment.pgp> From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 17:04:08 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:04:08 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXY2mQD85xK9AteXFJsR1vYUYNEF=kiM8223gTYwDTfXxg@mail.gmail.com> Proxying. On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com > wrote: > A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, > BTW? > On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router so I >> can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact >> > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >> > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I >> have a >> > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I >> am >> > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I >> want >> > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their >> IPs, >> > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner >> > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea >> how >> > to >> > > set those up or which one I would need. >> > >> > Howdy, >> > >> > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and >> > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration >> > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce >> > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. >> > >> > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but >> > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to >> > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with >> > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial >> > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a >> > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the >> > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Bill Herrin >> > >> > >> > -- >> > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> > >> > From jof at thejof.com Sat Jul 19 17:06:48 2014 From: jof at thejof.com (Jonathan Lassoff) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:06:48 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from many source IPs. On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, > BTW? > On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router so > I > > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact > > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I > > have a > > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I > am > > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I > > want > > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their > > IPs, > > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner > > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea > how > > > to > > > > set those up or which one I would need. > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and > > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration > > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce > > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. > > > > > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but > > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to > > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with > > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial > > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a > > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the > > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > > > > -- > > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com <javascript:;> > bill at herrin.us <javascript:;> > > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > > > > > > From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 17:12:13 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:12:13 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on certain parts like, just a really basic question. When doing things like conf t router bgp AS1337 neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" address-family ipv4 no synchronization neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. how would I state multiple peers.....? On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. > A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. > > Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from many > source IPs. > > > On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, >> BTW? >> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router >> so I >> > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact >> > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I >> > have a >> > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but >> I am >> > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I >> > want >> > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their >> > IPs, >> > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a >> inner >> > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea >> how >> > > to >> > > > set those up or which one I would need. >> > > >> > > Howdy, >> > > >> > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and >> > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration >> > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce >> > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. >> > > >> > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but >> > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to >> > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with >> > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial >> > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a >> > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the >> > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Bill Herrin >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> > > >> > >> > From jlewis at lewis.org Sat Jul 19 17:18:54 2014 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1407191317180.10544@soloth.lewis.org> Assuming this isn't some silly troll, you need to either hire someone with a bit more clue or see if your provider is willing to configure your router. It sounds like you have no idea how IP routing works. On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Abuse Contact wrote: > Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on > certain parts like, just a really basic question. > When doing things like > > conf t > router bgp AS1337 > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 > neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream > neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" > > address-family ipv4 > no synchronization > neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate > neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung > > I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like > > First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just > automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. > how would I state multiple peers.....? > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > >> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. >> A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. >> >> Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from many >> source IPs. >> >> >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, >>> BTW? >>> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router >>> so I >>>> can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact >>>>> <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I >>>> have a >>>>>> /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but >>> I am >>>>>> clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I >>>> want >>>>>> to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their >>>> IPs, >>>>>> etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a >>> inner >>>>>> routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea >>> how >>>>> to >>>>>> set those up or which one I would need. >>>>> >>>>> Howdy, >>>>> >>>>> Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and >>>>> (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration >>>>> I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce >>>>> the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. >>>>> >>>>> Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but >>>>> it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to >>>>> connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with >>>>> eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial >>>>> and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a >>>>> BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the >>>>> investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From jof at thejof.com Sat Jul 19 17:23:12 2014 From: jof at thejof.com (Jonathan Lassoff) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:23:12 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAHsqw9uyydJFR6rxAkmP1+iouCkO1T9qLLLVdX-3c8qkiTfS1w@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on certain > parts like, just a really basic question. > When doing things like > > conf t > router bgp AS1337 > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 > neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream > neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" > > address-family ipv4 > no synchronization > neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate > neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung > > I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like > > First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just > automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. > how would I state multiple peers.....? AS13335 is Cloudflare. How does TATA relate? You have a deicated server connected to TATA and Cloudflare? I'm skeptical. You really ought to do some more reading, learning, and practicing before running public BGP. I would recommend reading this book cover-to-cover: http://www.bgpexpert.com/'BGP'-by-Iljitsch-van-Beijnum/ It's only ~250 small pages. To practice and experiment, emulate some example configurations with GNS3 and Dynamips, or some Linux VMs with Quagga or BIRD. > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: >> >> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. >> A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. >> >> Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from many >> source IPs. >> >> >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, >>> BTW? >>> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router >>> > so I >>> > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact >>> > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I >>> > have a >>> > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but >>> > > > I am >>> > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. >>> > > > I >>> > want >>> > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their >>> > IPs, >>> > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a >>> > > > inner >>> > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea >>> > > > how >>> > > to >>> > > > set those up or which one I would need. >>> > > >>> > > Howdy, >>> > > >>> > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and >>> > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration >>> > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce >>> > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. >>> > > >>> > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good >>> > > but >>> > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to >>> > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with >>> > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. >>> > > Trial >>> > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a >>> > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the >>> > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Bill Herrin >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>> > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>> > > >>> > > > From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 17:25:12 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:25:12 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAHsqw9uyydJFR6rxAkmP1+iouCkO1T9qLLLVdX-3c8qkiTfS1w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9uyydJFR6rxAkmP1+iouCkO1T9qLLLVdX-3c8qkiTfS1w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXYxd-KEQ5GcKNy5O1c-oS_RjnQkO0RcUbciFPPQ563iMQ@mail.gmail.com> Oh no, I just used the first ASNs that came to mind :P On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Abuse Contact > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on > certain > > parts like, just a really basic question. > > When doing things like > > > > conf t > > router bgp AS1337 > > > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" > > > > address-family ipv4 > > no synchronization > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung > > > > I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like > > > > First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just > > automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. > > how would I state multiple peers.....? > > AS13335 is Cloudflare. > How does TATA relate? You have a deicated server connected to TATA and > Cloudflare? I'm skeptical. > > You really ought to do some more reading, learning, and practicing > before running public BGP. > > I would recommend reading this book cover-to-cover: > http://www.bgpexpert.com/'BGP'-by-Iljitsch-van-Beijnum/ > It's only ~250 small pages. > To practice and experiment, emulate some example configurations with > GNS3 and Dynamips, or some Linux VMs with Quagga or BIRD. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> > wrote: > >> > >> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. > >> A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. > >> > >> Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from > many > >> source IPs. > >> > >> > >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is > that, > >>> BTW? > >>> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" < > stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router > >>> > so I > >>> > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact > >>> > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and > I > >>> > have a > >>> > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, > but > >>> > > > I am > >>> > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP > Session. > >>> > > > I > >>> > want > >>> > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of > their > >>> > IPs, > >>> > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a > >>> > > > inner > >>> > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no > idea > >>> > > > how > >>> > > to > >>> > > > set those up or which one I would need. > >>> > > > >>> > > Howdy, > >>> > > > >>> > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server > and > >>> > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP > configuration > >>> > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to > announce > >>> > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. > >>> > > > >>> > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good > >>> > > but > >>> > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to > >>> > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with > >>> > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. > >>> > > Trial > >>> > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a > >>> > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the > >>> > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. > >>> > > > >>> > > Regards, > >>> > > Bill Herrin > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com > bill at herrin.us > >>> > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >>> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > From swm at emanon.com Sat Jul 19 17:29:01 2014 From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:29:01 -0400 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CFF0222A.F751E%swm@emanon.com> Fundamental routing training would greatly help you here. I would suggest looking for that. If you are not peering with TATA, then your routes would not go to TATA first. (unless the next-hop is indirect and that brings up other fundamental routing things that you should learn about) AS13335 is not TATA. So if this is what your provider gave you, one first assumes you¹d be directly connected to them (that¹s one of the rules in BGP¹s RFC for external connections).. If you have multiple providers, you may have multiple peers. Each one would give you information. But like others have stated, I would strongly suggest you stop your testing for the moment and either hire someone to help or take some time to learn the basics on there. Otherwise, successful or not, your testing will really have no meaning to you. Just my two cents. Scott -----Original Message----- From: Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> Date: Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 1:12 PM To: Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org> Subject: Re: BGP Session >Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on >certain parts like, just a really basic question. >When doing things like > >conf t >router bgp AS1337 > >neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 >neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream >neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" > >address-family ipv4 >no synchronization >neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate >neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung > >I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like > >First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just >automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. >how would I state multiple peers.....? > > >On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > >> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. >> A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. >> >> Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from >>many >> source IPs. >> >> >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is >>>that, >>> BTW? >>> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" >>><stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router >>> so I >>> > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact >>> > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and >>>I >>> > have a >>> > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, >>>but >>> I am >>> > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP >>>Session. I >>> > want >>> > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of >>>their >>> > IPs, >>> > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a >>> inner >>> > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no >>>idea >>> how >>> > > to >>> > > > set those up or which one I would need. >>> > > >>> > > Howdy, >>> > > >>> > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server >>>and >>> > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP >>>configuration >>> > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to >>>announce >>> > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. >>> > > >>> > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good >>>but >>> > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to >>> > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with >>> > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. >>>Trial >>> > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a >>> > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the >>> > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Bill Herrin >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>> > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>> > > >>> > >>> >> From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 17:35:33 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:35:33 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CFF0222A.F751E%swm@emanon.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> <CFF0222A.F751E%swm@emanon.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXYuxV=PT0KN7ykWRRQWv0TvscpA=arwWuNvmig8DkMYmg@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, that's probably the best idea in this situation. I've been really interested in BGP but didn't know where to start, I'll read all the books that you guys put up above and start reading them. Also, referring to what you said "If you are not peering with TATA, then your routes would not go to TATA first. (unless the next-hop is indirect and that brings up other fundamental routing things that you should learn about)" Yeah, I meant that if I was getting a Transit service from them. Like, if using a DC like Equinix, you have access to countless amounts of opportunities to use Transits from virtually any provider, if I were to contact TATA and ask for a transit, I'd set that up in BGP, but I'm confused on how. I'll look into Fundamental routing. Thanks! On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Scott Morris <swm at emanon.com> wrote: > Fundamental routing training would greatly help you here. I would suggest > looking for that. > > If you are not peering with TATA, then your routes would not go to TATA > first. (unless the next-hop is indirect and that brings up other > fundamental routing things that you should learn about) > > AS13335 is not TATA. So if this is what your provider gave you, one first > assumes you¹d be directly connected to them (that¹s one of the rules in > BGP¹s RFC for external connections).. If you have multiple providers, you > may have multiple peers. Each one would give you information. > > But like others have stated, I would strongly suggest you stop your > testing for the moment and either hire someone to help or take some time > to learn the basics on there. Otherwise, successful or not, your testing > will really have no meaning to you. > > Just my two cents. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> > Date: Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 1:12 PM > To: Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> > Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org> > Subject: Re: BGP Session > > >Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on > >certain parts like, just a really basic question. > >When doing things like > > > >conf t > >router bgp AS1337 > > > >neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 > >neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream > >neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" > > > >address-family ipv4 > >no synchronization > >neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate > >neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung > > > >I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like > > > >First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just > >automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. > >how would I state multiple peers.....? > > > > > >On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> > wrote: > > > >> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. > >> A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. > >> > >> Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from > >>many > >> source IPs. > >> > >> > >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is > >>>that, > >>> BTW? > >>> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" > >>><stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router > >>> so I > >>> > can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> > >>>wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact > >>> > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and > >>>I > >>> > have a > >>> > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, > >>>but > >>> I am > >>> > > > clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP > >>>Session. I > >>> > want > >>> > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of > >>>their > >>> > IPs, > >>> > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a > >>> inner > >>> > > > routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no > >>>idea > >>> how > >>> > > to > >>> > > > set those up or which one I would need. > >>> > > > >>> > > Howdy, > >>> > > > >>> > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server > >>>and > >>> > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP > >>>configuration > >>> > > I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to > >>>announce > >>> > > the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. > >>> > > > >>> > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good > >>>but > >>> > > it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to > >>> > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with > >>> > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. > >>>Trial > >>> > > and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a > >>> > > BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the > >>> > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. > >>> > > > >>> > > Regards, > >>> > > Bill Herrin > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com > bill at herrin.us > >>> > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >>> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > > From bzs at world.std.com Sat Jul 19 19:53:23 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:53:23 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <19537949.6504.1405709342116.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <21448.10252.908408.924524@world.std.com> <19537949.6504.1405709342116.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <21450.52403.722887.179918@world.std.com> On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote: > ---- Original Message ----- > > From: "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> > > > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users > > have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3 > > or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about". > > Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering. > > Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3. > > Could you dig that up, Barry? http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/ or http://tinyurl.com/ourl62e -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* From jra at baylink.com Sat Jul 19 20:32:42 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <21450.52403.722887.179918@world.std.com> Message-ID: <29734272.6544.1405801962850.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> > On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote: > > ---- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> > > > > > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband > > > users > > > have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 > > > have 3 > > > or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about". > > > > Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone > > tethering. > > > > Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3. > > > > Could you dig that up, Barry? > > http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/ Thank you. That suggests that 90% of USAdian households have access to wired broadband that is 10mbps down or better, which flies pretty hard in the face of the last numbers I saw, which said that no better than 60% had even DSL available to them as presently orderable service. I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bhatton at htva.net Sat Jul 19 00:50:36 2014 From: bhatton at htva.net (Ben Hatton) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:50:36 -0400 Subject: Cable Company Network Upgrade In-Reply-To: <52D34E82B0221340B7B5A9A39DD70FEC04AEF46D@exchange.solutioninc.com> References: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> <52D34E82B0221340B7B5A9A39DD70FEC04AEF46D@exchange.solutioninc.com> Message-ID: <CAD7y1TM4KumyD6sLT=YaLX9421v9zsmnRHxfSf0D2nw-zypWBQ@mail.gmail.com> I don't think there are any 'budget' routers that would move the amount of data you are looking at trying to do. 35k subs @ 240Mb is 8.4Tb/s at 100% utilization, even at a somewhat high 100:1 oversubsctiption you are looking at over 80Gb/s While our DOCSIS network is only 4000 subs, we peak at around 1.8gb/s on 10Mb packages, while oversubscription can increase with higher speed packages, as many users would never use that much bandwidth, some will, and even 1% of your customer base capping out a 240Mb would take most of a 10Gb pipe, and you still would have 34000 other subs to handle. I can't see offering 240Mb service to over 35k subs on anything less than a 100g core, and even that would be pushing it. Ben Hatton Network Engineer Haefele TV On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Chris R. Thompson < chris.thompson at solutioninc.com> wrote: > I think you oversubscribed... 10,000 to 1 seems a bit steep. > > > > > > On 07/18/2014 06:42 AM, Toney Mareo wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 based > cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): > > > -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the > network > All of these locations currently connecting to the internet > through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to upgrade > them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same > time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). > > What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this > purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco > equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. > > The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use various > cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network has > to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per customer. > > I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 > cable modems should they buy in the future. > And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. > > I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, > so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. > > Have a nice day folks! > > > > > -- > > > Christopher Thompson | Client Care | SolutionInc Limited > Office: +1.902.420-0077 | Fax: +1.902.420.0233 > > Email: chris.thompson at solutioninc.com > Website: www.solutioninc.com <http://www.solutioninc.com/> > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access With operations in more > than 45 countries worldwide, SolutionInc is an established global leader in > Internet, centralized hotspot connectivity, billing and management > solutions. SolutionInc provides software and services to the hospitality and > telecommunications industries through its award-winning, patented > technology software products: SolutionIP(tm) and SolutionIP(tm) Enterprise. > Through 700,000+ touch points, SolutionIP(tm) allows people to easily and > securely connect to the Internet from locations such as hotel rooms, > convention > centres, universities, restaurants and airports. Patent Information < > http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/> > > If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at 902 > 420 0077 or reply by e-mail to the sender and destroy the original > communication. > > Thank you. > > > > > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jul 19 22:28:26 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:28:26 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400." <29734272.6544.1405801962850.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <29734272.6544.1405801962850.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <72790.1405808906@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant. The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a per-county basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was counted as accessible to *the entire population* of said county. So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got Comcast because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their street because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the line, the FCC said all 50K had access to cable. Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are scratching their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers say everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers. I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a severe victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really want realistic numbers published... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140719/340a9785/attachment.pgp> From owen at delong.com Sat Jul 19 22:36:02 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:36:02 -0700 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9392BFB3-F13A-40C8-8CCE-79179ABE2AFD@delong.com> When did the NANOG list become freeconsulting.org? Owen On Jul 19, 2014, at 10:12 , Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, we're using it for an anycasted node but like, I'm confused on > certain parts like, just a really basic question. > When doing things like > > conf t > router bgp AS1337 > > neighbor 208.54.128.0 remote-as AS13335 > neighbor 208.54.128.0 description BGP with Upstream > neighbor 208.54.128.0 password "lolpass" > > address-family ipv4 > no synchronization > neighbor 208.54.128.0 activate > neighbor 208.54.128.0 soft-reconfiguration inboung > > I'm confused on when doing this, would I need to state like > > First go to AS13335 then go to TATA then go to my server or would it just > automatically do that or would my provider do that? I'm confused on that. > how would I state multiple peers.....? > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote: > >> An Anycasting node. For example, as part of a reliable DNS service. >> A /24 is usually the smallest prefix length that is portably accepted. >> >> Also, applications where connections need to appear to be coming from many >> source IPs. >> >> >> On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, >>> BTW? >>> On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router >>> so I >>>> can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact >>>>> <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I >>>> have a >>>>>> /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but >>> I am >>>>>> clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I >>>> want >>>>>> to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their >>>> IPs, >>>>>> etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a >>> inner >>>>>> routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea >>> how >>>>> to >>>>>> set those up or which one I would need. >>>>> >>>>> Howdy, >>>>> >>>>> Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and >>>>> (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP configuration >>>>> I strongly recommend you simply ask your service provider to announce >>>>> the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. >>>>> >>>>> Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good but >>>>> it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to >>>>> connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with >>>>> eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. Trial >>>>> and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy a >>>>> BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the >>>>> investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> From frnkblk at iname.com Sat Jul 19 23:04:24 2014 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:04:24 -0500 Subject: Cable Company Network Upgrade In-Reply-To: <CAD7y1TM4KumyD6sLT=YaLX9421v9zsmnRHxfSf0D2nw-zypWBQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> <52D34E82B0221340B7B5A9A39DD70FEC04AEF46D@exchange.solutioninc.com> <CAD7y1TM4KumyD6sLT=YaLX9421v9zsmnRHxfSf0D2nw-zypWBQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002201cfa3a5$c887d470$59977d50$@iname.com> Thanks for sharing Ben, that's 450 kbps/sub at peak times! We see numbers in our network closer to 300 kbps per subscriber. Assuming peak usage levels of 450 kbs/sub, that would be 15.75 Gbps for Toney's customer base, and possibly more if they really have a 240 Mbps offerings. But if there are 20 locations then it's an average of 787.5 Mbps per location. If each site had a 10 Gbps interface (with 1 or 2 Gbps of transport), then the core location should peer/buy transit with at least two ISPs over four 10G interfaces. That way if one ISP/interface falls away there's still sufficient capacity. We weren't told the geographical disparity of these 20 locations, but it may be wiser for each location to peer/buy transit to two or more disparate POPs rather than home them to one core location which has more single points of failure. Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hatton Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:51 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Cable Company Network Upgrade I don't think there are any 'budget' routers that would move the amount of data you are looking at trying to do. 35k subs @ 240Mb is 8.4Tb/s at 100% utilization, even at a somewhat high 100:1 oversubsctiption you are looking at over 80Gb/s While our DOCSIS network is only 4000 subs, we peak at around 1.8gb/s on 10Mb packages, while oversubscription can increase with higher speed packages, as many users would never use that much bandwidth, some will, and even 1% of your customer base capping out a 240Mb would take most of a 10Gb pipe, and you still would have 34000 other subs to handle. I can't see offering 240Mb service to over 35k subs on anything less than a 100g core, and even that would be pushing it. Ben Hatton Network Engineer Haefele TV On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Chris R. Thompson < chris.thompson at solutioninc.com> wrote: > I think you oversubscribed... 10,000 to 1 seems a bit steep. > > > > > > On 07/18/2014 06:42 AM, Toney Mareo wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 based > cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): > > > -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the > network > All of these locations currently connecting to the internet > through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to upgrade > them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same > time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). > > What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this > purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco > equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. > > The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use various > cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network has > to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per customer. > > I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 > cable modems should they buy in the future. > And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. > > I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, > so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. > > Have a nice day folks! > > > > > -- > > > Christopher Thompson | Client Care | SolutionInc Limited > Office: +1.902.420-0077 | Fax: +1.902.420.0233 > > Email: chris.thompson at solutioninc.com > Website: www.solutioninc.com <http://www.solutioninc.com/> > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access With operations in more > than 45 countries worldwide, SolutionInc is an established global leader in > Internet, centralized hotspot connectivity, billing and management > solutions. SolutionInc provides software and services to the hospitality and > telecommunications industries through its award-winning, patented > technology software products: SolutionIP(tm) and SolutionIP(tm) Enterprise. > Through 700,000+ touch points, SolutionIP(tm) allows people to easily and > securely connect to the Internet from locations such as hotel rooms, > convention > centres, universities, restaurants and airports. Patent Information < > http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/> > > If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at 902 > 420 0077 or reply by e-mail to the sender and destroy the original > communication. > > Thank you. > > > > > From fkittred at gwi.net Sat Jul 19 23:55:50 2014 From: fkittred at gwi.net (Fletcher Kittredge) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:55:50 -0400 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <9392BFB3-F13A-40C8-8CCE-79179ABE2AFD@delong.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> <9392BFB3-F13A-40C8-8CCE-79179ABE2AFD@delong.com> Message-ID: <CABa+6ODvKyVXHccTUgtSAurPvY=Dnn-yvGHEF=-cmmsSWT9PiA@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > When did the NANOG list become freeconsulting.org? > > Owen > 1996 -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134 From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jul 20 00:56:35 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:56:35 -0400 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:36:02 -0700." <9392BFB3-F13A-40C8-8CCE-79179ABE2AFD@delong.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHsqw9urAUwrDYC7P+GnFCQPr2MzL+WonSFejfcFidSmhx3=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXZMCyrsxWzhtNN68JdQtHvBchtn6CA-8UuD3KsvRnEZLg@mail.gmail.com> <9392BFB3-F13A-40C8-8CCE-79179ABE2AFD@delong.com> Message-ID: <79270.1405817795@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:36:02 -0700, Owen DeLong said: > When did the NANOG list become freeconsulting.org? I read that post, and I had a severe attack of "If you have to ask this question, you're not going to understand any answer short enough to fit in a NANOG post...." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140719/8ac6ab94/attachment.pgp> From tb at tburke.us Sun Jul 20 02:00:23 2014 From: tb at tburke.us (Tim Burke) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 02:00:23 +0000 Subject: BGP Session In-Reply-To: <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXbL+ouh0GmMJ3AZuB8CGA+Ax77yQR1GhgVFXptp1x8BDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVQUzyxE50zJcxDvHSjUrfP2S8hah0gE3Q1RPwFCG9bdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXaz9oXz2zHzKs5sPoeRyJhoUR7bBEB0hNTDSj76TtYAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuouA14if+uvVPhk5t1qN0JF0rfLJhvU2o_6ghAdTeTXkcQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ca7a1d2658d4452586956c3d7d66efa7@CO1PR07MB223.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Sounds like one of those sketchy 'triple-opt-in' mailing lists... :-) Or they're running 37 FTP's, 6 Ventrillos, 71 teleconferences, etc. Oh, and SSL. Can't forget about SSL. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:59 AM To: Abuse Contact Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: BGP Session A single linux box with a whole /24 on it? What sort of use case is that, BTW? On 19-Jul-2014 10:26 pm, "Abuse Contact" <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > I know, the DC is going to be giving me a BGP session on their router > so I can set it up, I'm not using a Linux server as a router. > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Abuse Contact > > <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I > have a > > > /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but > > > I am clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP > > > Session. I > want > > > to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of > > > their > IPs, > > > etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a > > > inner routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have > > > no idea how > > to > > > set those up or which one I would need. > > > > Howdy, > > > > Unless you have (1) a real router available, not a just a server and > > (2) an expert available to help you with your first BGP > > configuration I strongly recommend you simply ask your service > > provider to announce the /24 to the Internet on your behalf. > > > > Server-based BGP software like Quagga for Linux is reasonably good > > but it should absolutely not be involved in your _first_ attempt to > > connect with the Internet's default-free zone. Simple mistakes with > > eBGP can cause tremendous damage to other folks on the Internet. > > Trial and error is simply not OK. If it isn't worth it to you to buy > > a BGP-capable router then you also aren't prepared to make the > > investment in learning it takes to use BGP without causing harm. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > -- > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > > > From youssef at 720.fr Sun Jul 20 13:17:37 2014 From: youssef at 720.fr (Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:17:37 +0200 Subject: Rackspace (AS36248) peering contact Message-ID: <CALHo_yBrEoq7JK_ez=MnKpy4+YfzdZKyyTQ24AXkq8Di5MeM9A@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Can someone from Rackspace hosting peering team get in touch with me ? No peeringDB page or contacts easily available. Thanks. -- Youssef BENGELLOUN-ZAHR From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 14:12:26 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:12:26 -0400 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <53CA237E.3040404@winterei.se> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <53CA237E.3040404@winterei.se> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaNOKjudNAVsZscN6bhmP=N5wOas2oCQdvUevm=dXLGVw@mail.gmail.com> isn't the offering just a whiteboxed verisgn/prolexic equivalent though? On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Paul S. <contact at winterei.se> wrote: > This is done by performing some sort of filtering / acling, be it proactive > or reactive on the traffic before it's handed off to you. > > How exactly EQX' solution is engineered is a question best left for their > sales engineers or similar people to answer, though. > > > On 7/19/2014 午後 04:44, Abuse Contact wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >> >> Thanks! > > From apishdadi at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 14:32:29 2014 From: apishdadi at gmail.com (Ameen Pishdadi) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:32:29 -0500 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup. Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos protection, we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different market segments. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large > companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, > how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or > whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > > Thanks! Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large > companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, > how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or > whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > > Thanks! From contact at winterei.se Sun Jul 20 14:36:23 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:36:23 +0900 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CBD3E7.8070809@winterei.se> CF is willing to offer network drops over GRE / XCs too and filter everything apparently if the price is right. It is a custom service, though. On 7/20/2014 午後 11:32, Ameen Pishdadi wrote: > Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup. > > Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos protection, we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. > Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different market segments. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >> >> Thanks! > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >> >> Thanks! From contact at winterei.se Sun Jul 20 14:37:08 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:37:08 +0900 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaNOKjudNAVsZscN6bhmP=N5wOas2oCQdvUevm=dXLGVw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <53CA237E.3040404@winterei.se> <CAL9jLaaNOKjudNAVsZscN6bhmP=N5wOas2oCQdvUevm=dXLGVw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CBD414.8050909@winterei.se> I believe so, that was just a generalized answer. On 7/20/2014 午後 11:12, Christopher Morrow wrote: > isn't the offering just a whiteboxed verisgn/prolexic equivalent though? > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Paul S. <contact at winterei.se> wrote: >> This is done by performing some sort of filtering / acling, be it proactive >> or reactive on the traffic before it's handed off to you. >> >> How exactly EQX' solution is engineered is a question best left for their >> sales engineers or similar people to answer, though. >> >> >> On 7/19/2014 午後 04:44, Abuse Contact wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >>> >>> Thanks! >> From jra at baylink.com Sun Jul 20 16:06:08 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:06:08 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <72790.1405808906@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <29734272.6544.1405801962850.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <72790.1405808906@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <cf762777-68fd-43e9-bb30-ef842f34c760@email.android.com> Ah, yes... /those/ numbers. Lyrically put, Valdis; thanks. On July 19, 2014 6:28:26 PM EDT, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > >> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant. > >The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's >kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a >per-county >basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was >counted >as accessible to *the entire population* of said county. > >So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got >Comcast >because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their >street >because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the >line, >the FCC said all 50K had access to cable. > >Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the >people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are >scratching >their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers >say >everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers. > >I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a >severe >victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really >want realistic numbers published... -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From kmedcalf at dessus.com Sun Jul 20 16:08:41 2014 From: kmedcalf at dessus.com (Keith Medcalf) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:08:41 -0600 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXMBcxTyqStvDUuKzwid=0PoM1GQzXS3ydOYSom-t48LA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <dbeaa8556c960a43a0cda3c6e0c85458@mail.dessus.com> >An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light >doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So >why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks >which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did >say he used it for doing software development. You are absolutely correct Bill, however, >Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so >I'm not sure where the harm would be there either. In order to create a perception of movement, the images need to have "no image" between them. 24 frame progressive (such as a movie theatre from real film) is usually projected as 48 frames using double shutters. It is the "blank/dark/no image" parts between the images that create the perception of movement in the brain. For a scanning display (CRT) this is automatic -- the persistence of each display frame is timed such that it only persists for one half a scan (which is why if you take a picture of a CRT displaying an image with a camera with a shutter speed faster than the refresh rate, you see a rolling black bar). The "blank/black" frames are created automatically. LCD displays, however, do not have these blank frames between the actual frames, which is why they do not create the appearance of motion correctly. Most LCD display devices, however, have a refresh rate of 60 Hz (some are higher). When fed with a 30p signal, the display electronics should display blackness for every other 60p image. If you send a 60 Hz display a 60p signal, however, it will not have smooth motion. LCD's designed to display moving pictures (ie, TVs) will run at even higher refresh rates (120 Hz for example) which allows a 60p display with proper blanking. In some cases the motion vectors are calculated and only the "moving bits" are blanked (or in some cases displayed as a complement image). Devices with even higher refresh rates do even more esoteric computations to determine the interstitial frames to create a proper perception of motion by the brain. Each manufacturer uses their own proprietary algorithms to determine what to actually display -- some better some worse. Some even use a "scanning backlight" which makes the LCD display "emulate" the scanning behaviour of a CRT display allowing for a CRT-like creation of motion. Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.... From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 18:51:36 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:51:36 -0400 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaZvN_4erCz=mdNdT68hhqQPhufo9mVik97CgP3i3iM3hg@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> wrote: > Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup. > > Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos protection, 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in the previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ? we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. > Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different market segments. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >> >> Thanks! > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >> >> Thanks! From apishdadi at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 18:54:49 2014 From: apishdadi at gmail.com (Ameen Pishdadi) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:54:49 -0500 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZvN_4erCz=mdNdT68hhqQPhufo9mVik97CgP3i3iM3hg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZvN_4erCz=mdNdT68hhqQPhufo9mVik97CgP3i3iM3hg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <567602B0-16FA-432F-BD0F-7F7285B8C6F3@gmail.com> It was none of the mentioned , didn't wanna come off as advertising .. Gigenet is the company Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> wrote: >> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup. >> >> Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos protection, > > 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in the > previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ? > > we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering > exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our > network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. >> Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different market segments. >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >>> >>> Thanks! >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >>> >>> Thanks! From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 19:00:34 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:00:34 -0400 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <567602B0-16FA-432F-BD0F-7F7285B8C6F3@gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZvN_4erCz=mdNdT68hhqQPhufo9mVik97CgP3i3iM3hg@mail.gmail.com> <567602B0-16FA-432F-BD0F-7F7285B8C6F3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaYd+jhmSNvp1qVs=vCxNoiXmFNseZFfbzFKxV3RwymOiw@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> wrote: > It was none of the mentioned , didn't wanna come off as advertising .. Gigenet is the company > ok, cool the OP probably is interested... thanks! > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup. >>> >>> Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos protection, >> >> 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in the >> previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ? >> >> we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering >> exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our >> network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. >>> Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different market segments. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >>>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >>>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >>>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large >>>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, >>>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or >>>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? >>>> >>>> Thanks! From bbqroast at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 19:30:38 2014 From: bbqroast at gmail.com (mcfbbqroast .) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:30:38 +1200 Subject: Cable Company Network Upgrade In-Reply-To: <002201cfa3a5$c887d470$59977d50$@iname.com> References: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> <52D34E82B0221340B7B5A9A39DD70FEC04AEF46D@exchange.solutioninc.com> <CAD7y1TM4KumyD6sLT=YaLX9421v9zsmnRHxfSf0D2nw-zypWBQ@mail.gmail.com> <002201cfa3a5$c887d470$59977d50$@iname.com> Message-ID: <CAKJkDEsTt5x4Kx=mRhuRF95a9yB9wWh8=Av1V+xCQw+tj=Tsmw@mail.gmail.com> Instead of over subscription ratios think about what each user is doing. Let's say one 1080p Netflix stream per customer, that's 6 mbps each. Perhaps provision for that and you'll have plenty. On 20/07/2014 11:06 AM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote: > Thanks for sharing Ben, that's 450 kbps/sub at peak times! We see numbers > in our network closer to 300 kbps per subscriber. > > Assuming peak usage levels of 450 kbs/sub, that would be 15.75 Gbps for > Toney's customer base, and possibly more if they really have a 240 Mbps > offerings. But if there are 20 locations then it's an average of 787.5 > Mbps per location. If each site had a 10 Gbps interface (with 1 or 2 Gbps > of transport), then the core location should peer/buy transit with at least > two ISPs over four 10G interfaces. That way if one ISP/interface falls > away there's still sufficient capacity. > > We weren't told the geographical disparity of these 20 locations, but it > may be wiser for each location to peer/buy transit to two or more disparate > POPs rather than home them to one core location which has more single > points of failure. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hatton > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:51 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cable Company Network Upgrade > > I don't think there are any 'budget' routers that would move the amount of > data you are looking at trying to do. > > 35k subs @ 240Mb is 8.4Tb/s at 100% utilization, even at a somewhat high > 100:1 oversubsctiption you are looking at over 80Gb/s > > While our DOCSIS network is only 4000 subs, we peak at around 1.8gb/s on > 10Mb packages, while oversubscription can increase with higher speed > packages, as many users would never use that much bandwidth, some will, and > even 1% of your customer base capping out a 240Mb would take most of a 10Gb > pipe, and you still would have 34000 other subs to handle. > > I can't see offering 240Mb service to over 35k subs on anything less than a > 100g core, and even that would be pushing it. > > Ben Hatton > Network Engineer > Haefele TV > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Chris R. Thompson < > chris.thompson at solutioninc.com> wrote: > > > I think you oversubscribed... 10,000 to 1 seems a bit steep. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/18/2014 06:42 AM, Toney Mareo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 > based > > cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): > > > > > > -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the > > network > > All of these locations currently connecting to the internet > > through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to > upgrade > > them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same > > time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). > > > > What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this > > purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco > > equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. > > > > The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use > various > > cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network > has > > to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per > customer. > > > > I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 > > cable modems should they buy in the future. > > And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. > > > > I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, > > so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. > > > > Have a nice day folks! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Christopher Thompson | Client Care | SolutionInc Limited > > Office: +1.902.420-0077 | Fax: +1.902.420.0233 > > > > Email: chris.thompson at solutioninc.com > > Website: www.solutioninc.com <http://www.solutioninc.com/> > > > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access > > > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access With operations in more > > than 45 countries worldwide, SolutionInc is an established global leader > in > > Internet, centralized hotspot connectivity, billing and management > > solutions. SolutionInc provides software and services to the hospitality > and > > telecommunications industries through its award-winning, patented > > technology software products: SolutionIP(tm) and SolutionIP(tm) > Enterprise. > > Through 700,000+ touch points, SolutionIP(tm) allows people to easily and > > securely connect to the Internet from locations such as hotel rooms, > > convention > > centres, universities, restaurants and airports. Patent Information < > > http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/> > > > > If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately > at 902 > > 420 0077 or reply by e-mail to the sender and destroy the original > > communication. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > From LarrySheldon at cox.net Sun Jul 20 23:19:12 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:19:12 -0500 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <UgAh1o0271cZc5601gAj1M> References: <UgAh1o0271cZc5601gAj1M> Message-ID: <53CC4E70.3020904@cox.net> On 7/20/2014 11:08 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote: > >> An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light >> doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So >> why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks >> which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did >> say he used it for doing software development. > > You are absolutely correct Bill, however, > >> Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so >> I'm not sure where the harm would be there either. > > In order to create a perception of movement, the images need to have "no image" between them. 24 frame progressive (such as a movie theatre from real film) is usually projected as 48 frames using double shutters. It is the "blank/dark/no image" parts between the images that create the perception of movement in the brain. For a scanning display (CRT) this is automatic -- the persistence of each display frame is timed such that it only persists for one half a scan (which is why if you take a picture of a CRT displaying an image with a camera with a shutter speed faster than the refresh rate, you see a rolling black bar). The "blank/black" frames are created automatically. > > LCD displays, however, do not have these blank frames between the actual frames, which is why they do not create the appearance of motion correctly. Most LCD display devices, however, have a refresh rate of 60 Hz (some are higher). When fed with a 30p signal, the display electronics should display blackness for every other 60p image. If you send a 60 Hz display a 60p signal, however, it will not have smooth motion. > > LCD's designed to display moving pictures (ie, TVs) will run at even higher refresh rates (120 Hz for example) which allows a 60p display with proper blanking. In some cases the motion vectors are calculated and only the "moving bits" are blanked (or in some cases displayed as a complement image). Devices with even higher refresh rates do even more esoteric computations to determine the interstitial frames to create a proper perception of motion by the brain. > > Each manufacturer uses their own proprietary algorithms to determine what to actually display -- some better some worse. Some even use a "scanning backlight" which makes the LCD display "emulate" the scanning behaviour of a CRT display allowing for a CRT-like creation of motion. > > Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.... Like TV--time for a potty break. Really interesting read--lotta stuff I didn't know. It is a good day. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From mike at conlen.org Mon Jul 21 12:31:04 2014 From: mike at conlen.org (Michael Conlen) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:31:04 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <99C732EB-89EE-46C0-A462-4220E5A7C471@conlen.org> On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet". > > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" > -- Seth Breidbart. I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons. Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails. Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class. That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it. — Mike From contact at winterei.se Mon Jul 21 12:47:34 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:47:34 +0900 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <99C732EB-89EE-46C0-A462-4220E5A7C471@conlen.org> References: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <99C732EB-89EE-46C0-A462-4220E5A7C471@conlen.org> Message-ID: <53CD0BE6.3050905@winterei.se> When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-` On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote: > On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> >>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that >>> there is no such thing as "THE Internet". >> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" >> -- Seth Breidbart. > I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y > > In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons. > > Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails. > > Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class. > > That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it. > > — > Mike > From halflife4 at gmx.com Mon Jul 21 13:18:12 2014 From: halflife4 at gmx.com (Toney Mareo) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:18:12 +0200 Subject: Cable Company Network Upgrade In-Reply-To: <002201cfa3a5$c887d470$59977d50$@iname.com> References: <trinity-d1e0aa21-0e70-4c2f-a337-d1209c282a22-1405676527862@3capp-mailcom-bs06> <52D34E82B0221340B7B5A9A39DD70FEC04AEF46D@exchange.solutioninc.com> <CAD7y1TM4KumyD6sLT=YaLX9421v9zsmnRHxfSf0D2nw-zypWBQ@mail.gmail.com>, <002201cfa3a5$c887d470$59977d50$@iname.com> Message-ID: <trinity-8924f2c9-9864-4e25-942e-8de27c9c7fab-1405948691910@3capp-mailcom-bs07> Hello Thanks for the useful tips.   >We weren't told the geographical disparity of these 20 locations, but it may be wiser for each location to peer/buy transit to two or more disparate POPs rather than home them to one core location which has more single points of failure. The farest node is at 94kms, the closest to the central is 11kms but they are just like as you said distributed right now. Not all the traffic going through their HQ and I want to keep it this way. In this case I think 100gps routers are overkill. I just need to give them some recommendation for switches/routers for these edge nodes where the CMTS-es are located which are able to connect to 2-3 different ISPs. For now I recommended HP MSR50 Modular Router, but if you know any better price/category please let me know. I think the best choice are these modular routers, because ISPs might have different connections at different nodes like 1Gb fiber, 10Gb fiber. Also if anybody could recommend ABR (Adaptive bitrate streaming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming equipment for this size of network, that would be great. Thanks! Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 at 1:04 AM From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com> To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: Cable Company Network Upgrade Thanks for sharing Ben, that's 450 kbps/sub at peak times! We see numbers in our network closer to 300 kbps per subscriber. Assuming peak usage levels of 450 kbs/sub, that would be 15.75 Gbps for Toney's customer base, and possibly more if they really have a 240 Mbps offerings. But if there are 20 locations then it's an average of 787.5 Mbps per location. If each site had a 10 Gbps interface (with 1 or 2 Gbps of transport), then the core location should peer/buy transit with at least two ISPs over four 10G interfaces. That way if one ISP/interface falls away there's still sufficient capacity. We weren't told the geographical disparity of these 20 locations, but it may be wiser for each location to peer/buy transit to two or more disparate POPs rather than home them to one core location which has more single points of failure. Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hatton Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:51 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Cable Company Network Upgrade I don't think there are any 'budget' routers that would move the amount of data you are looking at trying to do. 35k subs @ 240Mb is 8.4Tb/s at 100% utilization, even at a somewhat high 100:1 oversubsctiption you are looking at over 80Gb/s While our DOCSIS network is only 4000 subs, we peak at around 1.8gb/s on 10Mb packages, while oversubscription can increase with higher speed packages, as many users would never use that much bandwidth, some will, and even 1% of your customer base capping out a 240Mb would take most of a 10Gb pipe, and you still would have 34000 other subs to handle. I can't see offering 240Mb service to over 35k subs on anything less than a 100g core, and even that would be pushing it. Ben Hatton Network Engineer Haefele TV On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Chris R. Thompson < chris.thompson at solutioninc.com> wrote: > I think you oversubscribed... 10,000 to 1 seems a bit steep. > > > > > > On 07/18/2014 06:42 AM, Toney Mareo wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 based > cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): > > > -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the > network > All of these locations currently connecting to the internet > through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to upgrade > them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same > time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). > > What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this > purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco > equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. > > The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use various > cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network has > to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per customer. > > I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 > cable modems should they buy in the future. > And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. > > I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, > so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. > > Have a nice day folks! > > > > > -- > > > Christopher Thompson | Client Care | SolutionInc Limited > Office: +1.902.420-0077 | Fax: +1.902.420.0233 > > Email: chris.thompson at solutioninc.com > Website: www.solutioninc.com[http://www.solutioninc.com] <http://www.solutioninc.com/[http://www.solutioninc.com/]> > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access > > SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access With operations in more > than 45 countries worldwide, SolutionInc is an established global leader in > Internet, centralized hotspot connectivity, billing and management > solutions. SolutionInc provides software and services to the hospitality and > telecommunications industries through its award-winning, patented > technology software products: SolutionIP(tm) and SolutionIP(tm) Enterprise. > Through 700,000+ touch points, SolutionIP(tm) allows people to easily and > securely connect to the Internet from locations such as hotel rooms, > convention > centres, universities, restaurants and airports. Patent Information < > http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/[http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/]> > > If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at 902 > 420 0077 or reply by e-mail to the sender and destroy the original > communication. > > Thank you. > > > > >   From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 14:20:32 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and other cable companies/MSOs[1]. Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 press release[2]. FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the FCC to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 ] While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are political; this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably political. My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? Cheers, -- jra [1] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused [2] https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 21 16:15:39 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:15:39 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <99C732EB-89EE-46C0-A462-4220E5A7C471@conlen.org> References: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <99C732EB-89EE-46C0-A462-4220E5A7C471@conlen.org> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pGS-ez7o7AsGRcTZreRy9TvVCcRFD35YtrbTr-TOBbWg@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Michael Conlen <mike at conlen.org> wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > > > >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that > >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet". > > > > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, > transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP > packet from'" > > -- Seth Breidbart. > > I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence > classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ > is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x > ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y > > In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached > by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or > an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not > hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons. > One might argue, however, that Seth's definition would hold for the original, open, end-to-end connectivity model of the internet; and that by extension, what many people think of as being on the internet, huddling behind their NATs and their firewalls, is not really truly on the internet. Yes, I realize that's a much narrower definition, and most people would argue against it; but it does rather elegantly frame "The Internet" as the set of fully-connected, unshielded IP connected hosts. > > Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ > partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails. > > Not quite; the closure *does* create an equivalence class--it's just not the one you were expecting it to be. That is, the fully-connected internet equivalence class of Seth's definition is smaller than what you'd like to consider "The Internet" to be, but it is a valid equivalence class. > Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest > subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations > hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class. > > That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it. > And one might argue that it's a more liberal interpretation of "The Internet" than what Seth had intended. As a though exercise...imagine a botnet owner that used encrypted payloads in ICMP packets for the command-and-control messages for her botnet army; no 'ack' is required, the messages simply need to make it from the control node to the zombies. She pops up a control node using unallocated, unannounced IP space; the host sends out control messages, never expecting to get responses, as the IP address it's using has no corresponding route in the global routing table. Is that control host part of "The Internet?" Seth's definition makes it clear that control host, spewing out its encrypted ICMP control messages in a one-way stream, is *not* part of "The Internet." Do we concur? Or is there some notion of that control host still being somehow part of "The Internet" because it's able to send evil nasty icky packets at the rest of the better-behaved Internet, even if we can't respond in any way? I find myself leaning towards Seth's definition, and supporting the idea that even though that host is sending a stream of IP traffic at my network, it's not part of "The Internet"--even though that conflicts with what my security team would probably say ("if it can attack me with IP datagrams, it's part of the internet."). It's actually a deceptively tough question to wrestle with. > — > Mike > > Thanks! Matt From jason.iannone at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 16:46:27 2014 From: jason.iannone at gmail.com (Jason Iannone) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:46:27 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but still lost. Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association." http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities > to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and > other cable companies/MSOs[1]. > > Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 > press release[2]. > > FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the FCC > to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. > > Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: > > http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet > > [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: > > http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 ] > > While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are political; > this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably political. > My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? > > Cheers, > -- jra > > [1] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused > [2] https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 17:13:45 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:13:45 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? - jra On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> wrote: >There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. >Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but >still lost. > >Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. >PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... >Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & >Telecommunications Association." > >http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires > >In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. >http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ > >On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >municipalities >> to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon >and >> other cable companies/MSOs[1]. >> >> Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 >> press release[2]. >> >> FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the >FCC >> to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. >> >> Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: >> >> >http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet >> >> [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: >> >> >http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 >] >> >> While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are >political; >> this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably >political. >> My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> >> [1] >http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused >> [2] >https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >jra at baylink.com >> Designer The Things I Think >RFC 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >Rover DII >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 >647 1274 -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jul 21 17:15:53 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:15:53 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> Message-ID: <BDBA01A0-1B2F-48D2-A229-953433DF679A@puck.nether.net> On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? I certainly don’t think it hurts.. but in general I’ll say the FiOS going symmetrical is very pro-consumer and pro-internet and in that part I suspect we will both agree. - Jared From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 17:19:23 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <BDBA01A0-1B2F-48D2-A229-953433DF679A@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <24461127.6670.1405963163206.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> > On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > > Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an > > attempt to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? > > I certainly don’t think it hurts.. but in general I’ll say the FiOS > going symmetrical is very pro-consumer and pro-internet and in that > part I suspect we will both agree. Well, if they are provisioned for it, and if they don't (continue to) impose the silly "you can't run a server on a consumer circuit" crap they traditionally have. I just have no faith that all the dominos are lined up in the proper direction... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 21 17:28:22 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:28:22 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> In an organization as large as Verizon there are many reasons why a policy gets changed. I'm certain that there are product guys who were saying our customers want this. I'm sure there were marketing folks saying we can build a marketing campaign around it. I am equally certain that some there were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. I'll be watching to see how well this roll out goes. If they didn't re-engineer their splits (or plan for symmetrical from the beginning) they could run into some problems because the total speed on a GPON port is asymmetrical, about 2.5 gbps down to 1.25 gbps up. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt > to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? > - jra > > > On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > wrote: > >There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. > >Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but > >still lost. > > > >Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. > >PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... > >Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & > >Telecommunications Association." > > > > > http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires > > > >In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. > > > http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ > > > >On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > >> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > >municipalities > >> to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon > >and > >> other cable companies/MSOs[1]. > >> > >> Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 > >> press release[2]. > >> > >> FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the > >FCC > >> to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. > >> > >> Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: > >> > >> > > > http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet > >> > >> [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: > >> > >> > > > http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 > >] > >> > >> While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are > >political; > >> this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably > >political. > >> My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- jra > >> > >> [1] > > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused > >> [2] > > > https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 > >> -- > >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > >jra at baylink.com > >> Designer The Things I Think > >RFC 2100 > >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > >Rover DII > >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 > >647 1274 > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > From jason.iannone at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 17:29:08 2014 From: jason.iannone at gmail.com (Jason Iannone) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:29:08 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> Message-ID: <CAGL1wDT4+AvfDHN4ySrQxMYyu3SgyqTcCkim=Vrde0xqcuMCEg@mail.gmail.com> Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to > blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? > - jra > > > > On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. >> Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but >> still lost. >> >> Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. >> PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... >> Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & >> Telecommunications Association." >> >> >> http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires >> >> In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. >> >> http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>> >>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>> to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and >>> other cable companies/MSOs[1]. >>> >>> Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 >>> press release[2]. >>> >>> FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the >>> FCC >>> to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. >>> >>> Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: >>> >>> >>> http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet >>> >>> [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: >>> >>> >>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 >>> ] >>> >>> While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are >>> political; >>> this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably >>> political. >>> My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- jra >>> >>> [1] >>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused >>> [2] >>> https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 >>> -- >>> Jay R. Ashworth >>> Baylink >>> jra at baylink.com >>> Designer The Things I Think >>> RFC 2100 >>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >>> Rover DII >>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 >>> 647 1274 > > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 21 18:17:46 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:17:46 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qbqNyrQ3oGzunwt_upTOEdxURarmFNNWWwfR4K=Tow2g@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > In an organization as large as Verizon there are many reasons why a policy > gets changed. I'm certain that there are product guys who were saying our > customers want this. I'm sure there were marketing folks saying we can > build a marketing campaign around it. I am equally certain that some there > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position > to argue from if we need to against Netflix. > Interestingly enough, this seems to be coupled with a statement that Verizon will be deploying Netflix CDN boxes into their network: http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/level-3s-selective-amnesia-on-peering "Fortunately, Verizon and Netflix have found a way to avoid the congestion problems that Level 3 is creating by its refusal to find “alternative commercial terms.” We are working diligently on directly connecting Netflix content servers into Verizon’s network so that we both can keep the interests of our mutual customers paramount." Kudos to Netflix for getting Verizon to agree to host openconnect boxes internally! This beats the business plan I was formulating to sell $1/month VPN connections to Netflix users on Verizon to bypass the congested links. ^_^; Matt > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 18:33:54 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:54 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qbqNyrQ3oGzunwt_upTOEdxURarmFNNWWwfR4K=Tow2g@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=qbqNyrQ3oGzunwt_upTOEdxURarmFNNWWwfR4K=Tow2g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGU8poc5g2Cq5Mv2CXjnEDwJCxjSPZjk9v=ay+wD6PkCNA@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > Interestingly enough, this seems to be coupled > with a statement that Verizon will be deploying > Netflix CDN boxes into their network: > > http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/level-3s-selective-amnesia-on-peering > > "Fortunately, Verizon and Netflix have found a way to avoid the congestion > problems that Level 3 is creating by its refusal to find “alternative > commercial terms.” "So what has changed for Level 3 [in the 2005 Cogent peering dispute]?" They lost the argument with Cogent. They figured out their customers were too valuable to risk their wrath over a desire to play chicken with someone willing to go the distance. That's what changed. Playing chicken with a large peer is a bad idea. Playing chicken with the FCC now that it's taken an interest is a worse one. I'm sorta surprised the class action lawyers aren't all over this. It seems to me a few million Verizon end-users are owed partial refunds of tens to hundreds of dollars each due to the admitted discriminatory constraints Verizon has placed on their data traffic to netflix and everybody else using the same networks netflix uses. I'm one of them. My Verizon connection became unusable for netflix a couple months ago and has been unusable for gaming every evening for the last few weeks. I'm only using a few dozen kilobits (paid for 25 mbps) for gaming, but the packet loss at the congested peering links kills it dead. If I didn't also have Cox I'd be ready to blow a gasket. There's a quality operation. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 18:34:22 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:34:22 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDT4+AvfDHN4ySrQxMYyu3SgyqTcCkim=Vrde0xqcuMCEg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAGL1wDT4+AvfDHN4ySrQxMYyu3SgyqTcCkim=Vrde0xqcuMCEg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGW+_UbC9bwgQ904V-xYvNb825uVMcBs1QyZ_eYTf9E45A@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> wrote: > Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer. Sure, because what paying customer would object to his vendor consuming his bandwidth to service other customers and what content provider would object to storing their content for redistribution on random client machines? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 18:36:41 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW+_UbC9bwgQ904V-xYvNb825uVMcBs1QyZ_eYTf9E45A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29041374.6674.1405967801946.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jason Iannone > <jason.iannone at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer > > to peer. > > Sure, because what paying customer would object to his vendor > consuming his bandwidth to service other customers and what content > provider would object to storing their content for redistribution on > random client machines? Well, Radio Paradise, which uses Octoshape for precisely this. But they're admittedly a special case. Still, Octoshape does seem to be staying in business... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 18:38:47 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:38:47 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities > to own fiber networks Hi Jay, Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There are many things government does better than any private organization is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an exorbitant price. Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 18:58:10 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:58:10 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaZNmU+D+hzqOpPffeMC9D73m5eKzAs1aZHfaAjpk5_5Lw@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > I am equally certain that some there > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position > to argue from if we need to against Netflix. wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part in the verizon blog? (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to verizon/netflix issues) From swmike at swm.pp.se Mon Jul 21 18:58:48 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:58:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote: > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained > to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications > infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. Like > public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight despite the > cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, preferrably tens of thousands. It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 21 19:01:30 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:01:30 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRw7ZiKQ4n6va343U2epNoRbjkP5KghZ3rwmBPQhc=vrng@mail.gmail.com> Bill, I've certainly seen poor execution from public operators, but I have also seen several that were well run and over the course of years (in one case decades). They're not right in all cases, but to simply say it can't be done well is false. Now, we do have to be sensitive to public <--> private competition but in cases where there is already a monopoly or even worse no broadband service I can't see how keeping muni's out helps consumers. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities > > to own fiber networks > > Hi Jay, > > Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > are many things government does better than any private organization > is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > exorbitant price. > > Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in > Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 21 19:04:48 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:04:48 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >> to own fiber networks > Hi Jay, > > Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > are many things government does better than any private organization > is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > exorbitant price. > > Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in > Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > > Let's see: - municipal water supplies work just fine - about 20% of US power is supplied by municipally owned electric utilities, for about 18% less cost (statistics might be a little stale, I haven't checked recently) - about the only gigabit FTTH in the country comes from muni networks - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big players have any intent of deploying anything Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From ikiris at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 19:08:26 2014 From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:08:26 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? -Blake On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >> to own fiber networks > > Hi Jay, > > Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > are many things government does better than any private organization > is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > exorbitant price. > > Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in > Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jul 21 19:26:24 2014 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:26:24 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 connection" Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: > > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > > -Blake > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>> to own fiber networks >> >> Hi Jay, >> >> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >> are many things government does better than any private organization >> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >> exorbitant price. >> >> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >> >> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 19:29:17 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16009954.6676.1405970957072.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> > wrote: > > Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > > municipalities to own fiber networks > > Hi Jay, > > Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > are many things government does better than any private organization > is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > exorbitant price. Sure it does, Bill. Retake civics, will you? Read about The Public Good, and tell me how profit-driven corporations -- especially public ones -- are the orgs best suited to protect and support it. > Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in > Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. Did you miss, perhaps, the 2 month long thread I started end of 2012, concerning building out a L1/L2 fiber muni? > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. I guess you didn't. May 6 fiber installers dig up the street in front of your house over the next 2 years. > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? Possibly not. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From rps at maine.edu Mon Jul 21 19:30:49 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:30:49 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CALFTrnN95mQVBa6LTnK8kBpato06cs1_HF89Bt4mGFHVR-972g@mail.gmail.com> Agree. I'd go a step further and say that Dark Fiber as a Public Utility (which is regulated to provide open access at published rates and forbidden from providing its own lit service directly) is the only way forward. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to see the municipality provide the fiber and Internet access. There needs to be some separation to promote an equal playing field. That isn't to say the town couldn't provide their own service within the framework of being a customer of the utility, which would be helpful as a price-check and anchor provider. Just need to make sure it's setup to promote competition not kill it. For rural areas where the population density is too low to deliver an acceptable ROI for companies like Verizon or Comcast, I think municipal dark fiber to the home is the only hope. Let the ISPs focus on the cost and investment of the optics and routers to drive up bandwidth instead of trying to absorb the cost of a 20 year fiber plant in 3 years. On a side note, this model actually makes it possible for a smaller ISP to actually be viable again, which might not be a bad thing. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > > -Blake > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>> to own fiber networks >> >> Hi Jay, >> >> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >> are many things government does better than any private organization >> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >> exorbitant price. >> >> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >> >> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 19:31:16 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZNmU+D+hzqOpPffeMC9D73m5eKzAs1aZHfaAjpk5_5Lw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <25263509.6678.1405971076155.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> > wrote: > > I am equally certain that some there > > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better > > position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. > > wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part > in the verizon blog? > (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to > verizon/netflix issues) I made the argument, so I'll clarify. One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're complaining about now. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 19:39:12 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <624111.6680.1405971552629.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Blake Dunlap" <ikiris at gmail.com> > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? It's not; Bill simply wasn't assuming L1(/L2) restriction, since not doing so better suited his "Corporations Are God; Governments Suck" argument. I will note that in fact, the power wires are usually owned by a franchised monopoly, and sometimes the water pipes. Even so, it's the Natural Monopoly that's the issue: you don't want to dig up the road every 15 minutes, especially for players who might fold in the middle. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From hugo at slabnet.com Mon Jul 21 19:45:43 2014 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:45:43 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <20140721194543.GA7700@slab-wks-04.slabnet.com> +1 A municipality nearby adopted this, and I personally like the model. They built out their own fiber, largely for their own purposes to connect municipal buildings and (I would assume) consolidate their internet access as well as opposed to a bunch of discrete retail-type connections. Since their laying conduit and fiber anyway, they just lay down a bigger bundle while they're down there; bonus points for piggy-backing on existing infrastructure projects that already dig up the road anyway. The fiber is terminated in one of two city-run DCs based on geography, and any provider can get space there and pick up a pair or more to an on-net building. Pricing is very reasonable ($400/month per pair) and the colo and power are actually free provided you're actually paying for a pair. There's a ring between the two facilities, so you basically just have to work out your transport to one or both facilities, drop in a switch or two and you're off. New multi-tenant construction gets built out by default. If a building is not yet on-net, submit it to the department running the dark net; if it's a feasible build, the city actually foots the bill for the build-out and you still just pay your $400/month/pair. They intentionally structured it to only do L1; they don't want to get into the business of running L2 or L3 services and explicitly do not want to compete with private providers. Infrastructure and utilities are their game, and the city is doing it as a play to encourage competition and draw in more connectivity options for residents and businesses. The figures I heard was their their break-even is/was at the 3-year mark. Even if they don't bring in massive revenue from providers participating, their still saving money compared to their previous connectivity solutions. So: - level playing field & greater competition: L1 is available to anyone at a reasonable cost, so small players can participate and differentiate on anything > L1 - providers are welcome to participate or not: you want to run your own fiber? Sure, no problem: business as usual in that department - city doesn't compete with private business From what I gather it's targeted more at active Ethernet to multi-tenant residential or business locations rather than being a "pass every house to enable PON" setup, but what's not to love about this? -- Hugo On Mon 2014-Jul-21 20:58:48 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote: > >>The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >>and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on >>the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure >>side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and >>freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect >>simile. > >While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I >would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be >exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode >fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, >preferrably tens of thousands. > >It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and >in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different >technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can >provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run >hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. >Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable >in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation. > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140721/c995d9d7/attachment.pgp> From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 21 19:49:11 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:49:11 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <25263509.6678.1405971076155.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAL9jLaZNmU+D+hzqOpPffeMC9D73m5eKzAs1aZHfaAjpk5_5Lw@mail.gmail.com> <25263509.6678.1405971076155.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRw0pPB=WuiqSYaYveKzFC_wTcb-VXTW3ZM8gzn8O5JodQ@mail.gmail.com> Jay, I really doubt that the guys who designed Verizon's access network had anything to do or say about their peering nor do I believe there was a cross departmental design meeting to talk about optimal peering to work with the access technology. The group responsible for peering and other transit operations and planning probably pre-dated FiOS being at scale by decades. Asymmetrical networks from telecom operators is and has been the norm world wide for a very long time. We're only now getting to a place where that consideration is even being talked about and even now none of the "common" approaches for access give symmetrical traffic except for Ethernet. I'd like to see EPON more common, but the traditional telco vendors either don't offer it or its just now becoming available. Again, I have no doubt that _after the fact_ someone at Verizon said that this is a good because it helps with the Netflix flap, but drawing causality between their prior asymmetrical offering and the way they went after transit is a mistake IMO. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> > > wrote: > > > I am equally certain that some there > > > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better > > > position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. > > > > wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part > > in the verizon blog? > > (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to > > verizon/netflix issues) > > I made the argument, so I'll clarify. > > One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem > was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball > network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how > their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're > complaining about now. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 19:50:22 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:50:22 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the lawyers. And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help folks in a truly remote location. > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? It isn't. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From stenn at ntp.org Mon Jul 21 19:49:46 2014 From: stenn at ntp.org (Harlan Stenn) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:49:46 +0000 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <E1X9Jak-000IaD-9z@stenn.ntp.org> Greg Walden (R-OR) is similarly funded by the cable and telecom folks, and is also loud and clear that he thinks we should forget about net neutrality and let the companies do what is best. H From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 19:53:48 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRw0pPB=WuiqSYaYveKzFC_wTcb-VXTW3ZM8gzn8O5JodQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <23936137.6682.1405972428754.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Sure. But you're making too much stew from one oyster; *I* did not *assert* that this was their motivation for doing so. I simply noted that it's tied into one of the arguments I'd seen for why they had a problem, and ameliorates it from their POV. Different thing. Cheers, -- jra ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> > To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:49:11 PM > Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics > Jay, > > I really doubt that the guys who designed Verizon's access network had > anything to do or say about their peering nor do I believe there was a > cross departmental design meeting to talk about optimal peering to > work > with the access technology. The group responsible for peering and > other > transit operations and planning probably pre-dated FiOS being at scale > by > decades. Asymmetrical networks from telecom operators is and has been > the > norm world wide for a very long time. We're only now getting to a > place > where that consideration is even being talked about and even now none > of > the "common" approaches for access give symmetrical traffic except for > Ethernet. I'd like to see EPON more common, but the traditional telco > vendors either don't offer it or its just now becoming available. > > Again, I have no doubt that _after the fact_ someone at Verizon said > that > this is a good because it helps with the Netflix flap, but drawing > causality between their prior asymmetrical offering and the way they > went > after transit is a mistake IMO. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> > > > wrote: > > > > I am equally certain that some there > > > > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a > > > > better > > > > position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. > > > > > > wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red > > > part > > > in the verizon blog? > > > (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to > > > verizon/netflix issues) > > > > I made the argument, so I'll clarify. > > > > One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's > > problem > > was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an > > eyeball > > network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how > > their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing > > they're > > complaining about now. > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > > jra at baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC > > 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > > Rover DII > > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > > 1274 > > -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 21 19:57:01 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:57:01 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> Bill, I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local officials. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:50 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: > > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've > suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade > and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about > my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the > service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing > department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the > lawyers. > > And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help > folks in a truly remote location. > > > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > > It isn't. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 20:04:28 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:04:28 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're > in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local > officials. Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From khelms at zcorum.com Mon Jul 21 20:13:02 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:13:02 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRx1bY-iE1u_sfxL07M+S7xXdqw=H3RH62jU+WP_966hTA@mail.gmail.com> Bill, If your issues are common in your town then getting the attention of city/town hall ought to be pretty damn easy, I've had to do so myself. If its just your neighborhood it still ought not be very hard. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > > I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're > > in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local > > officials. > > Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a > long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials > that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the > problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate > increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > From tom at ninjabadger.net Mon Jul 21 20:16:36 2014 From: tom at ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:16:36 +0100 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <24461127.6670.1405963163206.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <24461127.6670.1405963163206.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53CD7524.9070801@ninjabadger.net> On 21/07/14 18:19, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Well, if they are provisioned for it, and if they don't (continue to) > impose the silly "you can't run a server on a consumer circuit" > crap they traditionally have. It might improve their ratios if they did relax that... Eventually. > I just have no faith that all the dominos are lined up in the proper > direction... Indeed; quite hard to be trusting at this point. Tom From jason.iannone at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 20:17:50 2014 From: jason.iannone at gmail.com (Jason Iannone) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:17:50 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <25263509.6678.1405971076155.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAL9jLaZNmU+D+hzqOpPffeMC9D73m5eKzAs1aZHfaAjpk5_5Lw@mail.gmail.com> <25263509.6678.1405971076155.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements. Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to ask for free stuff. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> >> wrote: >> > I am equally certain that some there >> > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better >> > position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. >> >> wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part >> in the verizon blog? >> (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to >> verizon/netflix issues) > > I made the argument, so I'll clarify. > > One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem > was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball > network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how > their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're > complaining about now. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 20:25:35 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17370977.6684.1405974335457.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> > wrote: > > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've > suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade > and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about > my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the > service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing > department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the > lawyers. > > And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help > folks in a truly remote location. So, could you then, Bill, convince us that your opinion isn't based on confusing anecdotes for data? :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Mon Jul 21 20:26:54 2014 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:26:54 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> Message-ID: <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 connection" > > Matthew Kaufman > > (Sent from my iPhone) > >> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >> >> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >> >> -Blake >> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>>> to own fiber networks >>> Hi Jay, >>> >>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>> exorbitant price. >>> >>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>> >>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bill Herrin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? -- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================ From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 20:28:14 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network > (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as > anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In > Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and > L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements. > Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing > their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise > to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes > into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard > nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the > fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that > almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's > number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the > contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to > ask for free stuff. I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*. Did I misunderstand you? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 20:28:42 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:28:42 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <17370977.6684.1405974335457.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <17370977.6684.1405974335457.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGV67R8QgyLJqK42X=8mo1fVUzUAAsrLkN-4MfA6hM9ghQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > So, could you then, Bill, convince us that your opinion isn't based > on confusing anecdotes for data? :-) I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing politics and opinions. Did you have some actual data you wanted us to look at? ;-) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 20:29:34 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:29:34 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRx1bY-iE1u_sfxL07M+S7xXdqw=H3RH62jU+WP_966hTA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRx1bY-iE1u_sfxL07M+S7xXdqw=H3RH62jU+WP_966hTA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVf7XYvCynh0C-zOKC2J964L6F9ufbK-+sJuLkdWQov8Q@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > If your issues are common in your town then getting the attention of > city/town hall ought to be pretty damn easy, I've had to do so myself. If > its just your neighborhood it still ought not be very hard. Hi Scott, You're welcome to give it a try. I'll cheer you on and offer any data, letters, etc. that I can. Sad to say, but folks in the DC area are true masters of intransigence. We've elevated it to an art form. That billing dispute with the gas company took 18 months to resolve, and didn't get fixed until after it was referred to their lawyers. Even then I strongly suspect the fact that I was offering to pay them when the guy who opened the account and whose name was on the bill died 25 years prior probably had more to do with it than any argument about reasonableness. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 20:24:23 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:24:23 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDT4+AvfDHN4ySrQxMYyu3SgyqTcCkim=Vrde0xqcuMCEg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAGL1wDT4+AvfDHN4ySrQxMYyu3SgyqTcCkim=Vrde0xqcuMCEg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <453FCB9B-64B8-42C3-AFFA-966405473636@delong.com> Ask Skype just how easy it is to do that with a dual-stacked service. Owen On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:29 , Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> wrote: > Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer. > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to >> blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? >> - jra >> >> >> >> On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. >>> Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but >>> still lost. >>> >>> Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. >>> PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... >>> Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & >>> Telecommunications Association." >>> >>> >>> http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires >>> >>> In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. >>> >>> http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>>> to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and >>>> other cable companies/MSOs[1]. >>>> >>>> Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 >>>> press release[2]. >>>> >>>> FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the >>>> FCC >>>> to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. >>>> >>>> Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet >>>> >>>> [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 >>>> ] >>>> >>>> While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are >>>> political; >>>> this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably >>>> political. >>>> My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -- jra >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused >>>> [2] >>>> https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 >>>> -- >>>> Jay R. Ashworth >>>> Baylink >>>> jra at baylink.com >>>> Designer The Things I Think >>>> RFC 2100 >>>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >>>> Rover DII >>>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 >>>> 647 1274 >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From akg1330 at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 20:35:02 2014 From: akg1330 at gmail.com (Andrew Gallo) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:35:02 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <53CD7976.6070700@gmail.com> On 7/21/2014 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote: > >> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > > While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I > would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be > exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode > fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, > preferrably tens of thousands. > > It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and > in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different > technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can > provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run > hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. > Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable > in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation. > Agree 100%. Layer-1 infrastructure is a high-cost, long term investment with little 'value-add' You don't see too many companies clamoring to put in new water or sewer pipes. Treat fiber the same way. The money is in content, which is why we're seeing ISP and media consolidation. From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 20:35:22 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:35:22 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXX_yj4d-ZBGjiBt1JuNMTwmZ-ihZEBM1QzU1CA3Mi1tg@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote: >> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained >> to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications >> infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and non-discriminatory >> basis. The competition that would foster on the services side might outweigh >> the damage on the infrastructure side. Like public roads facilitate >> efficient transportation and freight despite the cost and potholes, though >> that's an imperfect simile. > > While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I would > definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be exactly that, > muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode fiber cabling, > aggregating thousands of households per location, preferrably tens of > thousands. Howdy, I hold out hope it could also be done with a local lit multipoint service. Here's your RFC 6598 address, here's the RFC 6598 addresses of these 20 service providers, pay whichever one you want for general purpose Internet connectivity, video over IP or whatever the heck it is they sell and they'll provide the VPN client you need. But either way, constrain the locality to providing local point to point and point to multipoint connectivity. Don't allow it to provide general services over the link unless you intend to keep all commercial service providers out. > It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and in > these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different > technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can > provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run > hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. Anything > is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable in 30 years as > it is day 1 after installation. You're not wrong. And a locality providing dark fiber as at least one of the buyable services is doing things right. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 20:34:58 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:34:58 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >> to own fiber networks > > Hi Jay, > > Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > are many things government does better than any private organization > is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > exorbitant price. Actually, in all of the places that have Muni fiber, things seem to be much better for consumers than where it does not exist. Of the people I've talked to (admittedly not a statistically valid sample), I've heard no reports of slow installations, problematic situations, or bad service anywhere near the levels offered by the various commercial broadband providers. > Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in > Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher layer services. OTOH, if we prohibit layer one facilities based operators from being service providers, you create an environment well suited to rich competition for the higher layer services while providing an opportunity for higher-layer service operators to increase accountability among the physical facilities operator. I'm not saying we grant legal monopolies to layer one providers or mandate that they be run by municipalities. I am saying that we should not prohibit municipalities from operating fiber systems, but, instead, we should prohibit anyone installing new facilities from also selling services over those facilities. Instead, facilities operators should be required to lease those physical plant elements to any service providers on an equal footing on a first-come-first serve basis. If a layer one provider does a bad enough job, the service providers can create demand for an alternative layer one provider much more easily than consumers. > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to provide physical link, not higher layer services. > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. I will point out that in my experience, private roads do not tend to be as well maintained overall as public roads with some notable exceptions in very wealthy gated communities. Owen From rvandolson at esri.com Mon Jul 21 20:41:46 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:41:46 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <20140721204133.GA30276@esri.com> My municipality (Loma Linda, CA) doesn't offer anything free, but does provide fiber connectivity (Layer 3) to residents in some portions of the city. There were plans at one point to make it available more broadly, but nearly eight years later I still am not in an area which has access nor do I think there has been great progress in the build-out efforts for whatever reasons (costs, lack of demand, etc.). Ray On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:26:54PM -0500, Aaron wrote: > Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > access to it's residents? > > > On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in > >free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every > >layer 1 connection" > > > >Matthew Kaufman > > > >(Sent from my iPhone) > > > >>On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > >>and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > >> > >>Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > >> > >>-Blake > >> > >>>On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > >>>>On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > >>>>Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities > >>>>to own fiber networks > >>>Hi Jay, > >>> > >>>Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > >>>are many things government does better than any private organization > >>>is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > >>>exorbitant price. > >>> > >>>Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > >>>built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > >>>residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > >>>taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > >>>access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in > >>>Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > >>> > >>>The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > >>>constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > >>>communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > >>>non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > >>>services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > >>>Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > >>>despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>>Bill Herrin From ryan at deadfrog.net Mon Jul 21 20:47:25 2014 From: ryan at deadfrog.net (Ryan Wilkins) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:47:25 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <0A03BA19-2A40-4240-BF2E-8A3C7783A927@deadfrog.net> On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote: > Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? Cleveland, OH Ward 13. http://oldbrooklynconnected.com Nearly every street in the ward has multiple wireless access points serving Internet access to the residents at 2.4 GHz. 5 GHz is used for backhaul. Ubiquity networks wireless gear is used with a smattering of Mikrotik routers throughout. It’s not terribly reliable but then maybe that’s on purpose to discourage lawsuits. If there is a problem with the system on a Friday at 5:30 PM, it’ll be down until the following Tuesday. The bandwidth also isn’t anything to write home about, but for free (meaning I don’t directly send these folks a check every month) it’s not too bad. I can get 6 Mbps down and 2-4 Mbps up, sometimes more up and down but that’s fairly rare.. I’ve used it for Netflix and it worked reasonably well. HD content would stream but often would jump back to SD. Rarely would it stop entirely. I ended up having to setup an account with Time Warner for their Internet service because I work from home and the wireless interruptions were enough that it was causing problems. AT&T also serves the area but only with 1.5 Mbps DSL. No other wired carriers serve the area aside from dialup. Ryan Wilkins From alex at corp.nac.net Mon Jul 21 20:56:41 2014 From: alex at corp.nac.net (Alex Rubenstein) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:56:41 +0000 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53f2edfb69b84e238cc52560edf89c72@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> What timing. I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a problem. Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are subscribed to this list. The copper is literally falling off the telephone poles, and in conversations with linemen, they are instructed to effectuate repairs in the cheapest manner possible (band-aid). In fact, in many cases, they offer to customers to replace their service with wireless rather than fix the wireline. Further, 07874 happens to be a region that never got FIOS prior to 2010, and there are no plans for it to come in the near future. So, we can always get 1.5 meg DSL which is as reliable, well, as reliable as it can be on a 75 year old copper plant. So, our alternative is cable? Well, in 07874, we have a company called Service Electric Cable, and for $109/month, you get cable tv, 2/.256 mb/s (yes, 256 kb/s upload) internet and phone. Up it to $173 month (!!!) and you get 35/3 mb/s instead. Upload speed? Yes, really, 3 mb/s. Oh, and wait, it isn't unlimited; there is a bandwidth cap that if you exceed, they charge $1/GB. So, if this is the case 50 miles from the largest city in the USA, I can't imagine what is happening elsewhere in more remote areas. So, yes, I am a fan for Muni Fiber; really, I am a fan for any method possible for more competition to occur in the local markets. Perhaps, hopefully, we are on the cusp of another round of ISPs selling broadband to the local, secondary and tertiary market. I am certainly considering doing it in my local community. > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Ashworth > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:21 AM > To: NANOG > Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics > > Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities to own > fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and other cable > companies/MSOs[1]. > > Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 press > release[2]. > > FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the FCC to > preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. > > Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: > > http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc- > are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet > > [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: > > http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would- > block-fcc-preemption/132468 ] > > While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are political; this > one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably political. > My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? > > Cheers, > -- jra > > [1] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with- > fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused > [2] https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS- > Expansion-is-Over-118949 > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From goemon at anime.net Mon Jul 21 20:27:46 2014 From: goemon at anime.net (goemon at anime.net) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: > - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big > players have any intent of deploying anything This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it. If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no service at all to this day. -Dan From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 21:02:56 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:02:56 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <383592BF-17B7-4791-8877-7C6A54091269@delong.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 13:04 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're >> in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local >> officials. > > Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a > long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials > that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the > problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate > increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? If you run, you can vote for yourself and try to push whatever you think is a more effective solution. If the problems are really as bad as you describe, surely you could get tremendous support from the other residents for your endeavor to resolve them. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 21:01:22 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:01:22 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7D6AE2C4-F7E2-47A3-B3F9-F52E76F07082@delong.com> Sounds like you chose a particularly bad municipality. I live in PG&E territory, so I can't directly comment on residential municipal power. However, I can say that my friends who live in SVP territory all have better service at a lower price than what I get from PG&E. (SVP is the City of Santa Clara power agency). Their service has proven both more reliable and more consistent in regards to voltage, lack of transients, etc. (Yes, we've actually put measurement equipment in and compared). My water is municipal and while it doesn't taste great without filtration due to the antiquity of the mostly iron pipes and the amount of rust that gets picked up from the system along the way, it's quite safe to drink and has been very reliable. I've not had any better experience from any of the private water companies I've ever dealt with. My sewer has been trouble free and the storm drains in my neighborhood by and large have worked without issue. On the few occasions where we've had minor storm drain issues, it has been during very heavy rain periods and the city has still managed to resolve the issues very promptly and without any significant hazard or collateral damage developing. PG&E has been relatively reliable with my gas connection, but I can point you to some residents in San Mateo county who could tell a very different story about their experience with PG&E's gas transmission system. (And some who can no longer tell any stories as a result of PG&E's gas transmission system). My garbage/recycling is provided by a third-party private contractor that has a monopoly granted to them by the city. I am billed by the city. Their service has left much to be desired, but when I have contacted the city about issues, the city employees have been very prompt about addressing them and seem to do well taking the contractor to task as needed. Frankly, I wish the city would just take over the actual operation as I think they would do a better job than the contractor (Green Waste). At least the new contractor is somewhat better than the previous one (BFI). I'm in the city of San Jose. We don't have municipal fiber to residential or business buildings, but the city does have its own rather extensive fiber network which includes, among other things, apparently every street-light in the city. (would be nice if they'd have included nearby buildings in that build-out or at least the possibility of attaching them later when they did that, but I'm sure some anti-government-competition weenies shot that idea down early on). I'm sorry your city is so bad at its jobs. Many cities are not. I wouldn't hold San Jose up as a shining example of a great municipality by any measure, but overall, they do seem to get the job done and are somewhat functional on average. I'd give them a C overall as a grade. I think they are about average as major municipalities go. Owen On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:50 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've > suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade > and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about > my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the > service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing > department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the > lawyers. > > And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help > folks in a truly remote location. > >> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > > It isn't. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Mon Jul 21 21:14:35 2014 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:14:35 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <0A03BA19-2A40-4240-BF2E-8A3C7783A927@deadfrog.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <0A03BA19-2A40-4240-BF2E-8A3C7783A927@deadfrog.net> Message-ID: <53CD82BB.9060201@wholesaleinternet.net> Thank you. Search gives me examples of small to medium municipal wireless deployments but what I'm particularly interested in is an example(s) of a municipal fiber build that was used to deliver free internet access to said municipality's residents. The post I originally responded to would lead me to believe that such an entity exists and if so, information on it would be super timely to a project I'm working on. Aaron On 7/21/2014 3:47 PM, Ryan Wilkins wrote: > On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote: > >> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? > > Cleveland, OH Ward 13. > http://oldbrooklynconnected.com > > Nearly every street in the ward has multiple wireless access points serving Internet access to the residents at 2.4 GHz. 5 GHz is used for backhaul. Ubiquity networks wireless gear is used with a smattering of Mikrotik routers throughout. > It’s not terribly reliable but then maybe that’s on purpose to discourage lawsuits. If there is a problem with the system on a Friday at 5:30 PM, it’ll be down until the following Tuesday. The bandwidth also isn’t anything to write home about, but for free (meaning I don’t directly send these folks a check every month) it’s not too bad. I can get 6 Mbps down and 2-4 Mbps up, sometimes more up and down but that’s fairly rare.. I’ve used it for Netflix and it worked reasonably well. HD content would stream but often would jump back to SD. Rarely would it stop entirely. > I ended up having to setup an account with Time Warner for their Internet service because I work from home and the wireless interruptions were enough that it was causing problems. AT&T also serves the area but only with 1.5 Mbps DSL. No other wired carriers serve the area aside from dialup. > > Ryan Wilkins > > -- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================ From jason.iannone at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 21:25:49 2014 From: jason.iannone at gmail.com (Jason Iannone) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:25:49 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> You didn't misunderstand me. But that's not the only point I was making. Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it doesn't have interconnections with. Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1 peering agreement. Cogent sends more than that and as such is in breach of contract. It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept penalties. So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's Cogent's. They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix, with the service they purchased. Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > >> Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network >> (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as >> anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In >> Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and >> L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements. >> Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing >> their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise >> to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes >> into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard >> nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the >> fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that >> almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's >> number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the >> contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to >> ask for free stuff. > > I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you > are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's > *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of > flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*. > > Did I misunderstand you? > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 21:30:11 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWOe827_TYg=0LKdTEkQNA5NwTiRJqBWYRt_dv0si1UUg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17333157.6694.1405978211364.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > I will point out that in my experience, private roads do not tend to > > be as well > > maintained overall as public roads with some notable exceptions in > > very wealthy > > gated communities. > > Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll > Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition > than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out at > http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but they > are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157 miles > of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen a > municipality achieve for the same price. Stop it, Bill. Owen didn't say "privately owned *toll road*"; "very wealthy gated communities" are even still rarely large enough to need their own turnpikes. If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down for you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish. Stop trying to make the arguments fit the end-game, and have the same conversation the rest of us are, ok? (And the next assertion you shouldn't make is that I'm saying governments are perfect, or even better than private corporations *IN GENERAL*; we're talking about a very specific commons, with a very specific set of requirements that are not well served by proprietary profit-making corporations.) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 21:31:30 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20084924.6696.1405978289998.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> So you're actually saying that it's *Cogent's* fault for not taking into account that Netflix was going to be horribly asymmetric, in taking them on as a client? I'm fine with that, but what's their solution? ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:25:49 PM > Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics > You didn't misunderstand me. But that's not the only point I was > making. Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it > doesn't have interconnections with. Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1 > peering agreement. Cogent sends more than that and as such is in > breach of contract. It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept > penalties. So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's > Cogent's. They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix, > with the service they purchased. > > Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the > internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix > as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone > promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight. > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > > > >> Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network > >> (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as > >> anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In > >> Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and > >> L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering > >> agreements. > >> Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing > >> their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a > >> surprise > >> to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes > >> into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously > >> hard > >> nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the > >> fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers > >> that > >> almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's > >> number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into > >> the > >> contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone > >> to > >> ask for free stuff. > > > > I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if > > you > > are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow > > Netflix's > > *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of > > flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*. > > > > Did I misunderstand you? > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 21:36:13 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> Message-ID: <25523272.6702.1405978573481.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of > subscribers in any > but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ > you let them > parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive > environment for higher layer services. As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in reducing barriers to entry. But no sense in relitigating that here. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 21:37:33 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV67R8QgyLJqK42X=8mo1fVUzUAAsrLkN-4MfA6hM9ghQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15077600.6704.1405978653390.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > So, could you then, Bill, convince us that your opinion isn't based > > on confusing anecdotes for data? :-) > > I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing politics and opinions. Did you > have some actual data you wanted us to look at? ;-) No, but I wasn't asserting "All government sucks. Ugh"; you were. Did *you* have data to back up "All", or not? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 21:41:23 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:41:23 +0000 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAMfXtQztXAQeKav9fT10T2F3MYCC5fCRp-hB=Cc=MDrecawk+Q@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: ..... > Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any > but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them > parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher > layer services. I take it that on principal you would have petitioned against the proposed Google Fiber roll-out in the San Jose area and would have spoken out against it at the public hearing on June 17th in favor of an alternative municipal funded project if you were not otherwise engaged (the synopsis indicates no public comments from the floor from that meeting)? You may have missed an opportunity to be the one to stop Google Fiber in San Jose in preference to muni fiber, although there is never just one meeting for such large scale projects. I am sure you will have other chances to offer your opinion, and encourage the council to just say no. From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jul 21 21:42:08 2014 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:42:08 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <453FCB9B-64B8-42C3-AFFA-966405473636@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDTWP8aM0sO4HkPbhTZ+xc+guGBAdj7YRj5r_6PNdjn19A@mail.gmail.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAGL1wDT4+AvfDHN4ySrQxMYyu3SgyqTcCkim=Vrde0xqcuMCEg@mail.gmail.com> <453FCB9B-64B8-42C3-AFFA-966405473636@delong.com> Message-ID: <53CD8930.6020207@matthew.at> I'd rather ask Adobe, since their peer-to-peer transport (and layers above) has been dual-stacked since it was first designed. Matthew Kaufman On 7/21/2014 1:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Ask Skype just how easy it is to do that with a dual-stacked service. > > Owen > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:29 , Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer. >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>> Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to >>> blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? >>> - jra >>> >>> >>> >>> On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. >>>> Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but >>>> still lost. >>>> >>>> Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. >>>> PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... >>>> Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & >>>> Telecommunications Association." >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires >>>> >>>> In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. >>>> >>>> http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>>>> to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and >>>>> other cable companies/MSOs[1]. >>>>> >>>>> Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 >>>>> press release[2]. >>>>> >>>>> FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the >>>>> FCC >>>>> to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. >>>>> >>>>> Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet >>>>> >>>>> [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 >>>>> ] >>>>> >>>>> While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are >>>>> political; >>>>> this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably >>>>> political. >>>>> My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -- jra >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 >>>>> -- >>>>> Jay R. Ashworth >>>>> Baylink >>>>> jra at baylink.com >>>>> Designer The Things I Think >>>>> RFC 2100 >>>>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >>>>> Rover DII >>>>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 >>>>> 647 1274 >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jul 21 21:43:12 2014 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:43:12 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <53CD8970.5080700@matthew.at> Is that what I said? Matthew Kaufman On 7/21/2014 1:26 PM, Aaron wrote: > Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > access to it's residents? > > > On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer >> 1 connection" >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>> >>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>> >>> -Blake >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>> municipalities >>>>> to own fiber networks >>>> Hi Jay, >>>> >>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>> exorbitant price. >>>> >>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>> >>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bill Herrin >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 21:54:42 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:54:42 +0000 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <15077600.6704.1405978653390.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAP-guGV67R8QgyLJqK42X=8mo1fVUzUAAsrLkN-4MfA6hM9ghQ@mail.gmail.com> <15077600.6704.1405978653390.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAMfXtQyQ8SHQ0Y6GXfq7ZS2QsZ0yokngKoE_uOAxdRFoZnfaNQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: .... > No, but I wasn't asserting "All government sucks. Ugh"; you were. All governments suck some of the time, and some governments suck all of the time. Your evaluation as to the level of vacuum will depend on how often your oxen pass the government goring centers (part of the "you can not please all of the people all of the time" theme). From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 22:07:30 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:07:30 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <17333157.6694.1405978211364.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAP-guGWOe827_TYg=0LKdTEkQNA5NwTiRJqBWYRt_dv0si1UUg@mail.gmail.com> <17333157.6694.1405978211364.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWVVLofnuL9pzcBMG5fyW5uo=986jKTJvLUkYFdck-3NQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> > I will point out that in my experience, private roads do not tend to >> > be as well >> > maintained overall as public roads with some notable exceptions in >> > very wealthy >> > gated communities. >> >> Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll >> Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition >> than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out at >> http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but they >> are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157 miles >> of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen a >> municipality achieve for the same price. > > Stop it, Bill. > > Owen didn't say "privately owned *toll road*"; "very wealthy gated > communities" are even still rarely large enough to need their own > turnpikes. > > If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down for > you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish. (A) The referenced example, the HOVE RMC, is 157 miles of privately owned road which is neither a toll road nor a gated community. (B) That was a private message to you and Owen. Is there a particular reason you felt the need to add nanog back to the recipients list? -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 22:13:33 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWVVLofnuL9pzcBMG5fyW5uo=986jKTJvLUkYFdck-3NQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <19135158.6710.1405980813272.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > >> Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll > >> Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition > >> than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out > >> at http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but > >> they are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157 > >> miles of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen > >> a municipality achieve for the same price. > > > > Stop it, Bill. > > > > Owen didn't say "privately owned *toll road*"; "very wealthy gated > > communities" are even still rarely large enough to need their own > > turnpikes. > > > > If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down > > for you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish. > > (A) The referenced example, the HOVE RMC, is 157 miles of privately > owned road which is neither a toll road nor a gated community. That was one example of 4, the last. The other appear to be toll roads, though I don't live in the neighborhood. > (B) That was a private message to you and Owen. Is there a particular > reason you felt the need to add nanog back to the recipients list? Cause my mailer isn't RFC 2919 compliant. Sorry. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From brian at artschwager.com Mon Jul 21 20:39:37 2014 From: brian at artschwager.com (Brian Artschwager) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:39:37 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAC+eHkCYJ2qdn3h1RhuWkRF7q_cY_KqQ-9AsapKFEYstyb4+9g@mail.gmail.com> Maybe I am narrow minded in my reading of all of this information. But it seems to me that Verizon customers want to use their service to the internet(Verizon), and Verizon's connection to the internet(L3, cogent, etc) is not a thick enough pipe. This sounds like UPS telling you that the reason your next day package hasn't arrived is because they refuse to buy an airplane and insist on sending it by truck... On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> > > > Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network > > (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as > > anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In > > Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and > > L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements. > > Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing > > their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise > > to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes > > into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard > > nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the > > fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that > > almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's > > number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the > > contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to > > ask for free stuff. > > I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you > are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's > *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of > flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*. > > Did I misunderstand you? > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > From mureninc at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 22:20:16 2014 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:20:16 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53f2edfb69b84e238cc52560edf89c72@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53f2edfb69b84e238cc52560edf89c72@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> Message-ID: <CAPKkNb4y+POnX1DvAMeEdSpuhCHStzx7zyvNTO0VaMZ1feqMag@mail.gmail.com> On 21 July 2014 13:56, Alex Rubenstein <alex at corp.nac.net> wrote: > What timing. > > I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a problem. > > Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are subscribed to this list. The copper is literally falling off the telephone poles, and in conversations with linemen, they are instructed to effectuate repairs in the cheapest manner possible (band-aid). In fact, in many cases, they offer to customers to replace their service with wireless rather than fix the wireline. > > Further, 07874 happens to be a region that never got FIOS prior to 2010, and there are no plans for it to come in the near future. So, we can always get 1.5 meg DSL which is as reliable, well, as reliable as it can be on a 75 year old copper plant. > > So, our alternative is cable? Well, in 07874, we have a company called Service Electric Cable, and for $109/month, you get cable tv, 2/.256 mb/s (yes, 256 kb/s upload) internet and phone. Up it to $173 month (!!!) and you get 35/3 mb/s instead. Upload speed? Yes, really, 3 mb/s. Oh, and wait, it isn't unlimited; there is a bandwidth cap that if you exceed, they charge $1/GB. > > So, if this is the case 50 miles from the largest city in the USA, I can't imagine what is happening elsewhere in more remote areas. > > So, yes, I am a fan for Muni Fiber; really, I am a fan for any method possible for more competition to occur in the local markets. Perhaps, hopefully, we are on the cusp of another round of ISPs selling broadband to the local, secondary and tertiary market. I am certainly considering doing it in my local community. I've lived in midtown San Jose, CA 95126 circa 2010/2012, in a 2010-completed condo-style 5-story 243-unit apartment complex, which had AT&T FTTU, with Alcatel HONT-C (4 POTS, 1 Ethernet; "155.52 Mbps upstream and 622.08 Mbps downstream", according to Alcatel; shared with at most 32 users). http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-January/055282.html I've had the fibre terminated in my bedroom closet with ONT. At that time, AT&T would advertise 24/3 U-verse, since the day I've signed up in mid-2010. Yet they repeatedly (and on distinct occasions, well into 2012) have failed and/or refused to provision my line to anything above 18/1.5. So, I did have under 3ms pings to some local CDNs, but only 1.5Mbps of upstream, on a line that could easily handle 100Mbps. Apparently, they've reserved 24/3 for single-pair copper customers, with bonded pair and FTTU being artificially limited to 18/1.5. Keep in mind -- that's a greenfield development in San Jose, CA -- the biggest city in NorCal, and 10th biggest city in the US. Strangely enough, it seems like if you actually want faster internet, you have to move away from the big metro areas. Kansas City, MO/KS, Chattanooga, TN, Burlington, VT, Wilson, NC, Lafayette, LA, all have much faster internet than most of the SF Bay Area. I've actually even started making a list at http://bmap.su/, together with the pricing; it has all the links, and I haven't updated the prices in a while; if you visit the providers, you can see how the prices for 100/100 are now the same as they were for 40/40 a year ago, and 1000/1000 is the same price as 80/80 was; and you can basically get 1000/1000 for between 70 and 150 USD from the vast majority of the providers on the list now. Whereas at&t U-verse is still doing the same single-digit Mbps on the upload side, even if they already have the technology in place for doing 100Mbps. C. From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 22:21:32 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:21:32 +0000 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <19135158.6710.1405980813272.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAP-guGWVVLofnuL9pzcBMG5fyW5uo=986jKTJvLUkYFdck-3NQ@mail.gmail.com> <19135158.6710.1405980813272.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAMfXtQyx11n1=zwkDpXQh1hzWtjcjcgaGN8kXMsBersdhRFrXg@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: .... > Cause my mailer isn't RFC 2919 compliant. Sorry. Zimbra has had open "follow the damn RFC's" tickets out there for a number of years. Perhaps it is past time to migrate away (fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me for three consecutive version upgrades....) From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 21 22:28:22 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQyx11n1=zwkDpXQh1hzWtjcjcgaGN8kXMsBersdhRFrXg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <25295872.6718.1405981702397.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Buhrmaster" <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> > wrote: > .... > > Cause my mailer isn't RFC 2919 compliant. Sorry. > > Zimbra has had open "follow the damn RFC's" > tickets out there for a number of years. I know. I wrote the vast majority of them, when I installed 5.x in 2009. > Perhaps > it is past time to migrate away (fool me once, > shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. > Fool me for three consecutive version upgrades....) The machine my personal Z6 server is on, since I left that job, is 64 bit, but I only had 32 bit Centos5 laying around to install it with at that time, and to upgrade Zimbra I now *have to* upgrade the OS as well, which boosts the tuit requirements enough notches that I just haven't done it yet. It's about to be replaced by something much newer and faster, which will get Z8... and then I'll retarget all the tickets which they likely *still* haven't fixed. :-} Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From cboyd at gizmopartners.com Mon Jul 21 22:31:05 2014 From: cboyd at gizmopartners.com (Chris Boyd) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:31:05 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8FF0850A-509A-4DBF-A319-5BD4EC7BA6E2@gizmopartners.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. I was planning on staying out of this debate, but..... I was involved in an effort a few years back to legalize municiple fiber buildouts in Texas for a few reasons: Lack of fiber penetration in smaller cities where pent up demand was not being met. Lack of competition in high speed data services in all but a few markets in the state. This being the heady days of WiFi, allow cities who chose to build out public access to do so without interference from any incumbent. And locally, allow the cities that already had fiber built out to use that fiber to earn additional revenue by leasing capacity to any carrier who wanted it. To put it mildly, the incumbents went off. Massive lobbying efforts. Astroturfing. End of the telecom world rhetoric. During the regular session, using a pro market argument that allowing open access to a city built fiber network would improve the comepetive landscape, we fought the anti-muni bill to a draw in the regular session. It was, of course, passed in a dead-of-night action in a follow-on special session. Cities were pretty well blocked from leasing fiber to others. Now almost 10 years later, I'm finally seeing stirring of real competition on the utility poles in my neighborhood. ATT is hanging new fiber and advertisting new high speed service on uVerse, TWC has increased their service levels without increasing prices. The change? Google Fiber. --Chris From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 22:31:58 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:31:58 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <25523272.6702.1405978573481.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <25523272.6702.1405978573481.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <3B228E66-95F8-4A87-A9AF-B4286E39225E@delong.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 14:36 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > >> Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of >> subscribers in any >> but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ >> you let them >> parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive >> environment for higher layer services. > > As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive > L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in > reducing barriers to entry. > > But no sense in relitigating that here. IIRC, we agreed to disagree at the end of that thread. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 22:31:13 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:31:13 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQztXAQeKav9fT10T2F3MYCC5fCRp-hB=Cc=MDrecawk+Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> <CAMfXtQztXAQeKav9fT10T2F3MYCC5fCRp-hB=Cc=MDrecawk+Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EA355B0-FD57-45C4-9B48-E77730E32077@delong.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 14:41 , Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > ..... >> Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any >> but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them >> parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher >> layer services. > > I take it that on principal you would have petitioned against the > proposed Google Fiber roll-out in the San Jose area and would > have spoken out against it at the public hearing on June 17th > in favor of an alternative municipal funded project if you were not > otherwise engaged (the synopsis indicates no public comments > from the floor from that meeting)? You may have missed an > opportunity to be the one to stop Google Fiber in San Jose in > preference to muni fiber, although there is never just one meeting > for such large scale projects. I am sure you will have other > chances to offer your opinion, and encourage the council to > just say no. Nope... I would strongly support it. Why? Because until we have regulation that does what I am proposing, we have ridiculous monopolies with all kinds of negative consumer impact. While Google as a new monopoly wouldn't be the ideal competitive environment, it would, at least, be better than what we have today. While I believe, on principle that we need to move forward towards what I described above, I also recognize the reality on the ground and the need not to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. Owen From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 21 22:47:38 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:47:38 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <19135158.6710.1405980813272.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <CAP-guGWVVLofnuL9pzcBMG5fyW5uo=986jKTJvLUkYFdck-3NQ@mail.gmail.com> <19135158.6710.1405980813272.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWZrR8o8qraYCZS08e5SvVSc6sfUw+FW8c34nZ-42nt_Q@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > >> >> Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll >> >> Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition >> >> than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out >> >> at http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but >> >> they are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157 >> >> miles of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen >> >> a municipality achieve for the same price. >> > >> > Stop it, Bill. >> > >> > Owen didn't say "privately owned *toll road*"; "very wealthy gated >> > communities" are even still rarely large enough to need their own >> > turnpikes. >> > >> > If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down >> > for you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish. >> >> (A) The referenced example, the HOVE RMC, is 157 miles of privately >> owned road which is neither a toll road nor a gated community. > > That was one example of 4, the last. The other appear to be toll roads, > though I don't live in the neighborhood. Indeed. One is a purely private toll road, one is a public-private partnership toll road and one is owned and operated by a quasi-governmental agency. Why consider just one class of private roads when you can examine examples of four? VDOT actually does a halfway decent job of maintaining local public roads but they spend a vast fortune on it and they're decades (with an s) behind expanding those roads to meet the demand. Compared to Verizon/Netflix they're about the same: works OK a good part of the day but comes to a screeching halt during the quarter of the day that are prime hours. Compare that to Maryland which enjoys reducing lanes for construction work on already congested roads for months at a time and DC itself which spends a cast fortune on roads which are usually in worse condition *after* the maintenance. Soon the roads there will have more metal plate surface area than asphalt. DC roads are like a network with permanent 10% packet loss and your only alternative is geo satellite. But HOVE is a nice example. As a land owner and therefore shareholder in the RMC, I pay my fees every year. I vote directly on those fees too, so if I'm not happy I have some real control. As a shareholder of Verizon I have no control. I truly earnestly wish my stock would go to zero. Rather, I wish for Verizon to encounter trouble that would cause my stock to drop to zero. But as long as that isn't happening I may as well collect the dividend. If the government ran it, I couldn't even do that. What were we talking about? I forget. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From betty at newnog.org Tue Jul 22 00:39:44 2014 From: betty at newnog.org (Betty Burke <betty@nanog.org>) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:39:44 -0400 Subject: [NANOG-announce] NANOG Reminders and Updates Message-ID: <CABhExixpMOkxxmwRrtVbJZ11zNJJm_VMSdMZ_umv4eKBaqTUiA@mail.gmail.com> Colleagues: A few reminders regarding NANOG 61- Bellevue, ARIN+NANOG on The Road - Madison, NANOG 62 - Baltimore, Baltimore Education Classes, 2014 Elections, and a NANOG Portal Update follow; NANOG 61 Presentations <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/agenda> and Meeting Survey Results <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/surveys> are posted. NANOG on the Road will be traveling to Madison, WS <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/road4/home> on September 9, 2014. The pre-agenda is expected very shortly. Please note, registration is required, however there is no fee to attend. NANOG 62 CFP <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/callforpresentations>, Registration <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/registration>, and Hotel Reservations <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/hotelinformation> are open. As the deadline is fast approaching, please do consider submitting a presentation. The NANOG Registration Fee will increase on September 15, 2014. We expect strong attendance, thus be sure to make your room reservation soon. Do you know someone who might need a bit of assistance attending NANOG 62, please send along information regarding our NANOG Fellowship <https://www.nanog.org/resources/fellowships> program. Two Education Classes, Routing Fundamentals <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/baltimore_education_classes/routing_fundamentals> and IPv6 Routing Fundamentals <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/baltimore_education_classes/ipv6_routing_fundamentals> will be offered on Sunday, October 5, 2015 in Baltimore. These classes offer This is a great opportunity for budding engineers or graduate students, as well as current Internet technicians, to learn best practices, refresh on routing skills. 2014 Elections are fast approaching. The Election announcement will be sent shortly. So as to participate in NANOG leadership discussions, be sure to renew and/or join NANOG <https://www.nanog.org/membership/join> now. Lastly, as you prepare to Register for NANOG 62, or renew your NANOG membership, you will see a new NANOG Portal (ARO) interface with more icons and simpler navigation paths to help you get where you want to go. Should you decide you like the look/feel of the old interface, you can switch back by following the steps: - Log onto your ARO account at https://www.nanog.org/login and enter your username and password. - Click on My ARO at the top left next to the NANOG logo; then click on My Account. - Under Account Preferences on the right side, select NO at "Show New Interface." We hope you find these reminders and information helpful. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact nanog-support at nanog.org. Sincerely, Betty -- Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 48377 Fremont Boulevard, Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 Tel: +1 510 492 4030 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce at mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce From rsk at gsp.org Tue Jul 22 00:58:28 2014 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:58:28 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53f2edfb69b84e238cc52560edf89c72@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53f2edfb69b84e238cc52560edf89c72@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> Message-ID: <20140722005828.GA18843@gsp.org> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:41PM +0000, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a problem. You also have another problem, which I'll get to in a moment. > Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are > subscribed to this list. The copper is literally falling off the > telephone poles, and in conversations with linemen, they are instructed > to effectuate repairs in the cheapest manner possible (band-aid). In > fact, in many cases, they offer to customers to replace their service > with wireless rather than fix the wireline. That's the problem. Copper plant is clearly not the optimal solution for data communication, but when you really NEED a voice call to go through -- say, when a major hurricane moves up the coast, taking out all kinds of infrastructure as it goes -- it gives you the best chance. And if that phone call's content is something like "the water is rising, we need to be evac'd NOW", then you'd probably want that best chance. Well, if it's as well-maintained as it once was. Say what you want about the old Ma Bell, but they overengineered the hell out of everything from CO's to handsets, and that effort saved lives. Now? Not so much: Verizon Tells Some Sandy Victims They'll Never Get DSL Back As Company Continues Push Toward Killing Off Copper http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Tells-Some-Sandy-Victims-Theyll-Never-Get-DSL-Back-123612 Verizon Tells More Sandy Victims They'll Never See DSL Repaired Verizon Uses Storm Cover as Opportunity to Hang Up on Users http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/124166 Sandy Victims Continue to Complain Verizon Hung Up on Them http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/126235 Verizon on Killing DSL: But..But..Sandy Was SAD! Company Dodges Concerns About Failure in Sandy Regions http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/124486 Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its New York Copper Lines https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131209/13575325508/public-service-commission-orders-verizon-to-cough-up-cost-data-its-new-york-copper-lines.shtml Verizon Responds To Freedom Of Information Request With Hundred Of Fully Redacted Pages https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131030/16250525075/verizon-responds-to-freedom-information-request-with-hundred-fully-redacted-pages.shtml ---rsk From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 01:25:05 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:25:05 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> Message-ID: <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> goemon at anime.net wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of >> the big players have any intent of deploying anything > > This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no > provider was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it. > > If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no > service at all to this day. > Is that Ashland, Oregon? I did some consulting on that project. The way it started was: - They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building - US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point, - the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility "what would it cost to run some fiber" - after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000, one time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles, bucket trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who were sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit) - after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network The cool thing about the project: - Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment Cheers, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 01:33:03 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:33:03 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery basis. Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: > Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > access to it's residents? > > > On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer >> 1 connection" >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>> >>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>> >>> -Blake >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>> municipalities >>>>> to own fiber networks >>>> Hi Jay, >>>> >>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>> exorbitant price. >>>> >>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>> >>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bill Herrin >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 01:38:27 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:38:27 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CDC093.4080502@meetinghouse.net> William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're >> in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local >> officials. > Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a > long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials > that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the > problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate > increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? > So where is it that you live Bill? I sure want to avoid moving there. As an aside, I used to do policy and consulting work for communities that were looking at telecom. builds - mostly for muni electrics. In general, I found the folks I worked for to be very competent, and focused on public service. Yes, there are incompetent, and corrupt, municipal utilities - but by and large they don't seem to be the ones trying to go into the telecom arena. It's more the folks in communities that have muni electric utilities because, 100 years ago, the big boys weren't interested in their market - so, god damn it, they went out and built themselves their own electric plant (also why there are lots of coops out there, and lots of independent telcos in Iowa). Today, those same folks are saying - if Verizon doesn't want to build it, screw it, we'll do it ourselves. Also, the incompetent and the corrupt, generally aren't interested in the political and legal battles they'd have to go through to get a project off the ground. Cheers, Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 01:48:20 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:48:20 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CD7976.6070700@gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407212056000.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <53CD7976.6070700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CDC2E4.7070404@meetinghouse.net> Andrew Gallo wrote: > > On 7/21/2014 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >>> and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on >>> the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure >>> side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and >>> freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect >>> simile. >> >> While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I >> would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be >> exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode >> fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, >> preferrably tens of thousands. >> >> It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, >> and in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several >> different technologies, they can use PON, they can use active >> ethernet, they can provide corporate 10GE connections if they need >> to, they can run hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE >> for residential. Anything is possible and the infrastructure is >> likely to be as viable in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation. >> > Agree 100%. Layer-1 infrastructure is a high-cost, long term > investment with little 'value-add' You don't see too many companies > clamoring to put in new water or sewer pipes. Treat fiber the same way. > > The money is in content, which is why we're seeing ISP and media > consolidation. One could argue that conduit is probably enough - it's digging up the streets that's the real expense (different story if everything is on poles, of course). Personally, I generally argue that there are tremendous efficiencies if you provision at layer-2 -- how many college campuses or business parks that run redundant wires through the walls? My favorite model is Grant County, WA - where the public utility district strung fiber everywhere. They light the fiber at layer 2, but they only sell wholesale virtual nets. They've got lots of competitive telephone, internet, and video providers riding the net. Seems to work for them. I believe they provisioned GigE 10 years ago. (Note that these guys are serious players - they were running a network of hyrdo-electric dams, and power distribution, long before they got into telecom. Now that's REAL operations. :-) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From jra at baylink.com Tue Jul 22 01:53:36 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Replacing Copper With Fiber, er, FiOS (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) In-Reply-To: <20140722005828.GA18843@gsp.org> Message-ID: <28837423.6738.1405994016891.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk at gsp.org> > That's the problem. Copper plant is clearly not the optimal solution > for data communication, but when you really NEED a voice call to go > through -- say, when a major hurricane moves up the coast, taking out > all kinds of infrastructure as it goes -- it gives you the best chance. > And if that phone call's content is something like "the water is rising, > we need to be evac'd NOW", then you'd probably want that best chance. > > Well, if it's as well-maintained as it once was. Say what you want > about the old Ma Bell, but they overengineered the hell out of > everything from CO's to handsets, and that effort saved lives. I have seen footage of a 308 rifle bullet going through the network of a 500 phone... which continued working. > Verizon Tells Some Sandy Victims They'll Never Get DSL Back As Company > Continues Push Toward Killing Off Copper > http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Tells-Some-Sandy-Victims-Theyll-Never-Get-DSL-Back-123612 > Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its > New York Copper Lines > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131209/13575325508/public-service-commission-orders-verizon-to-cough-up-cost-data-its-new-york-copper-lines.shtml > > Verizon Responds To Freedom Of Information Request With Hundred Of > Fully Redacted Pages > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131030/16250525075/verizon-responds-to-freedom-information-request-with-hundred-fully-redacted-pages.shtml There's a messier problem here, that I don't see much coverage of (so perhaps I heard it wrong): Is not Verizon trying to replace *regulated* ILEC copper with *unregulated* FiOS VoF? Isn't that pulling a pretty fast one? This came up in the "when we install FiOS, we're physically removing all your copper demarcs (even if they have active calls on them)" thing, too, but still not much outrage. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 22 02:06:06 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:06:06 +1000 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <53CD0BE6.3050905@winterei.se> References: <23918467.6502.1405708370460.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <99C732EB-89EE-46C0-A462-4220E5A7C471@conlen.org> <53CD0BE6.3050905@winterei.se> Message-ID: <20140722020606.GB5739@hezmatt.org> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:47:34PM +0900, Paul S. wrote: > On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote: > >On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> > >>>But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that > >>>there is no such thing as "THE Internet". > >> > >>"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, > >>transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an > >>IP packet from'" > >> > >>-- Seth Breidbart. > > > >I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence > >classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet > >from’ is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and > >say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y > > > >In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached > >by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall > >or an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does > >not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons. > > > >Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ > >partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails. > > > >Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest > >subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations > >hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class. > > > >That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it. > > When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-` We probably shouldn't talk about it in public. - Matt "A discrete math course, on the other hand..." From the.lists at mgm51.com Tue Jul 22 02:19:43 2014 From: the.lists at mgm51.com (Mike.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:19:43 -0400 Subject: Replacing Copper With Fiber, er, FiOS (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) In-Reply-To: <28837423.6738.1405994016891.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <28837423.6738.1405994016891.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <201407212219430305.02F1CC62@smtp.24cl.home> On 7/21/2014 at 9:53 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: |----- Original Message ----- |There's a messier problem here, that I don't see much coverage of (so |perhaps I heard it wrong): | |Is not Verizon trying to replace *regulated* ILEC copper with |*unregulated* FiOS VoF? | >From what I've read in the local Hurricane Sandy coverage (I'm in the NYC area), I'd have to say 'yes' to that. |Isn't that pulling a pretty fast one? You sound surprised. From nanog at jima.us Tue Jul 22 03:17:34 2014 From: nanog at jima.us (Jima) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:17:34 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAPKkNb4y+POnX1DvAMeEdSpuhCHStzx7zyvNTO0VaMZ1feqMag@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <53f2edfb69b84e238cc52560edf89c72@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> <CAPKkNb4y+POnX1DvAMeEdSpuhCHStzx7zyvNTO0VaMZ1feqMag@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CDD7CE.2060801@jima.us> On 2014-07-21 16:20, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > Strangely enough, it seems like if you actually want faster internet, > you have to move away from the big metro areas. Kansas City, MO/KS, > Chattanooga, TN, Burlington, VT, Wilson, NC, Lafayette, LA, all have > much faster internet than most of the SF Bay Area. Don't forget the various SLC suburbs with their sub-$100 1000/1000 FTTH service, and choice of eight layer-3 providers. (Sorry.) Jima From rvandolson at esri.com Tue Jul 22 03:31:58 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:31:58 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 Message-ID: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> I'm short some important details on this one, but hopefully can fill in more shortly. We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. The issue is reproducible on both our production Gigabit circuit as well as a consumer grade Verizion FIOS line. Speeds are normal (10MB/sec plus) via non-Verizon circuits we've tested. Source IP's are in the 198.102.62.0/24 range and destination on the EC2 side is 54.197.239.228. I'm not sure in which availability zone the latter IP sits, but hope to find out shortly. MTR traceroute details are as follows: Host Loss% Snt Drop Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 198.102.62.253 0.0% 526 0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 2. 152.179.250.141 0.0% 526 0 14.1 7.0 19.4 3.6 3. 140.222.225.135 37.5% 526 197 7.7 6.8 35.8 1.9 4. 129.250.8.85 0.0% 526 0 8.1 7.4 11.7 0.3 5. 129.250.2.229 10.3% 525 54 11.4 7.1 85.7 9.6 6. 129.250.2.169 41.5% 525 218 63.0 45.5 130.7 10.3 7. 129.250.2.154 0.2% 525 1 59.9 44.5 69.0 4.0 8. ??? 9. 54.240.229.96 7.8% 525 41 76.6 71.3 119.9 8.6 54.240.229.104 54.240.229.106 10. 54.240.229.2 6.9% 525 36 74.7 71.6 109.1 4.9 54.240.229.4 54.240.229.20 54.240.229.8 54.240.229.14 54.240.228.254 54.240.229.16 54.240.229.10 11. 54.240.229.174 5.5% 525 29 76.0 71.7 109.0 7.3 54.240.229.162 54.240.229.160 54.240.229.170 54.240.229.172 54.240.229.168 54.240.229.164 12. 54.240.228.167 94.5% 525 495 76.4 71.7 126.0 11.6 54.240.228.169 54.240.228.165 54.240.228.163 13. 72.21.220.108 5.1% 525 27 75.2 71.3 112.6 6.8 205.251.244.12 72.21.220.8 205.251.244.64 72.21.220.96 205.251.244.8 72.21.220.6 205.251.244.4 14. 72.21.220.45 9.0% 525 47 74.0 71.6 199.5 8.5 72.21.220.149 72.21.220.29 72.21.220.125 72.21.220.37 72.21.220.61 72.21.220.2 72.21.220.69 15. 72.21.222.33 10.5% 525 55 73.4 71.5 87.1 1.5 205.251.245.65 72.21.222.149 72.21.222.35 72.21.220.29 72.21.222.131 72.21.222.147 72.21.220.37 16. 205.251.245.65 93.9% 525 492 73.1 72.2 76.2 1.2 72.21.222.35 72.21.222.131 17. ??? 18. ??? 19. 216.182.224.79 13.5% 524 71 77.9 72.4 101.2 5.4 216.182.224.81 216.182.224.95 216.182.224.77 20. 216.182.224.81 94.1% 524 492 77.9 72.8 93.0 6.3 216.182.224.95 216.182.224.77 21. ??? The 140.222.225.135 shows up in the traceroutes via our Verizon Business FIOS line as well. Will be opening a ticket with both Verizon and AWS to assist, but hoping someone out there can take a look or chime in. Feel free to reply off list. Thanks, Ray From rdobbins at arbor.net Tue Jul 22 03:41:25 2014 From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:41:25 +0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> Message-ID: <7EA1CB75-3F39-4816-9DD4-3D202305A73F@arbor.net> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a difference? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön From LarrySheldon at cox.net Tue Jul 22 03:41:54 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:41:54 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <V7DV1o00r1cZc56017DX2W> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <V7DV1o00r1cZc56017DX2W> Message-ID: <53CDDD82.9040903@cox.net> On 7/21/2014 2:08 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote: > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? Almost forces a "what planet" question. Our power comes, some times, from Omaha Public Power District (not a municipal entity). Cutting the necessary slack for the storms we have here, there are still way too many hits, blinks, and occasional hours-long outages that are never explained. When I was a manager in a data Center in San Jose, California we had to install a 250KVA UPS plant and run the 1100/80 on rotating machines in order to survive the incessant hits, dips, drops, and outages. Our water here is from a non-municipal Metropolitan Utilities District (who also does natural gas which we don't have). And it is reliable and safe (if drinking water strongly laced with chlorine products can be said to be "safe"). Where we are, the sewer system (a Municipal Utility!) seems to work, but in parts of Omaha if there is any rain to speak of peoples basements fill with sewage. Several tax-increases and bond sales have been made to fix that, but it appears that the upscale parts of town gets new sidewalks. Telephone, TV and Internet Service Provision is all Cox Cable (not a Municipal Utility) and it all pretty much works as long as OPPD hasn't gone to lunch. So I don't think it matters much what "kind" of an operation it is--it matters what kinds of things are demanded-of and provided-for (funded) by the customers and the owners. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From LarrySheldon at cox.net Tue Jul 22 03:44:20 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:44:20 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <V7TD1o0221cZc56017TFmQ> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <V7TD1o0221cZc56017TFmQ> Message-ID: <53CDDE14.4060501@cox.net> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in > free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer > 1 connection" I don't think "municipality" is particularly relevant. What is relevant is offering unfunded, un-understood, freebies. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From rvandolson at esri.com Tue Jul 22 03:47:36 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:47:36 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <7EA1CB75-3F39-4816-9DD4-3D202305A73F@arbor.net> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <7EA1CB75-3F39-4816-9DD4-3D202305A73F@arbor.net> Message-ID: <20140722034736.GA4652@esri.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:41:25AM +0700, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > > > We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < > > 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted > > circuits. > > Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a > difference? Not in a position to easily test that tonight (PDT) but will do so tomorrow. Ray From t at heckman.io Tue Jul 22 03:51:36 2014 From: t at heckman.io (Tim Heckman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:51:36 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <7EA1CB75-3F39-4816-9DD4-3D202305A73F@arbor.net> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <7EA1CB75-3F39-4816-9DD4-3D202305A73F@arbor.net> Message-ID: <CAB=D40h-x82NLUbBPSjd5WONban7Hu0iXOLQx7_4RRRUxkrBqQ@mail.gmail.com> I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace route. I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr doesn't support. Cheers! -Tim On Jul 21, 2014 8:44 PM, "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins at arbor.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > > > We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. > > Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a difference? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Equo ne credite, Teucri. > > -- Laocoön > From t at heckman.io Tue Jul 22 03:56:27 2014 From: t at heckman.io (Tim Heckman) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:56:27 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> Message-ID: <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. Here it is in full: #### I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace route. I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr doesn't support. Cheers! -Tim On Jul 21, 2014 8:34 PM, "Ray Van Dolson" <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > I'm short some important details on this one, but hopefully can fill in > more shortly. > > We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < > 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. > The issue is reproducible on both our production Gigabit circuit as > well as a consumer grade Verizion FIOS line. > > Speeds are normal (10MB/sec plus) via non-Verizon circuits we've > tested. > > Source IP's are in the 198.102.62.0/24 range and destination on the EC2 > side is 54.197.239.228. I'm not sure in which availability zone the > latter IP sits, but hope to find out shortly. > > MTR traceroute details are as follows: > > Host Loss% Snt Drop Avg > Best Wrst StDev > 1. 198.102.62.253 0.0% 526 0 0.2 > 0.2 0.5 0.0 > 2. 152.179.250.141 0.0% 526 0 14.1 > 7.0 19.4 3.6 > 3. 140.222.225.135 37.5% 526 197 7.7 > 6.8 35.8 1.9 > 4. 129.250.8.85 0.0% 526 0 8.1 > 7.4 11.7 0.3 > 5. 129.250.2.229 10.3% 525 54 11.4 > 7.1 85.7 9.6 > 6. 129.250.2.169 41.5% 525 218 63.0 > 45.5 130.7 10.3 > 7. 129.250.2.154 0.2% 525 1 59.9 > 44.5 69.0 4.0 > 8. ??? > 9. 54.240.229.96 7.8% 525 41 76.6 > 71.3 119.9 8.6 > 54.240.229.104 > 54.240.229.106 > 10. 54.240.229.2 6.9% 525 36 74.7 > 71.6 109.1 4.9 > 54.240.229.4 > 54.240.229.20 > 54.240.229.8 > 54.240.229.14 > 54.240.228.254 > 54.240.229.16 > 54.240.229.10 > 11. 54.240.229.174 5.5% 525 29 76.0 > 71.7 109.0 7.3 > 54.240.229.162 > 54.240.229.160 > 54.240.229.170 > 54.240.229.172 > 54.240.229.168 > 54.240.229.164 > 12. 54.240.228.167 94.5% 525 495 76.4 > 71.7 126.0 11.6 > 54.240.228.169 > 54.240.228.165 > 54.240.228.163 > 13. 72.21.220.108 5.1% 525 27 75.2 > 71.3 112.6 6.8 > 205.251.244.12 > 72.21.220.8 > 205.251.244.64 > 72.21.220.96 > 205.251.244.8 > 72.21.220.6 > 205.251.244.4 > 14. 72.21.220.45 9.0% 525 47 74.0 > 71.6 199.5 8.5 > 72.21.220.149 > 72.21.220.29 > 72.21.220.125 > 72.21.220.37 > 72.21.220.61 > 72.21.220.2 > 72.21.220.69 > 15. 72.21.222.33 10.5% 525 55 73.4 > 71.5 87.1 1.5 > 205.251.245.65 > 72.21.222.149 > 72.21.222.35 > 72.21.220.29 > 72.21.222.131 > 72.21.222.147 > 72.21.220.37 > 16. 205.251.245.65 93.9% 525 492 73.1 > 72.2 76.2 1.2 > 72.21.222.35 > 72.21.222.131 > 17. ??? > 18. ??? > 19. 216.182.224.79 13.5% 524 71 77.9 > 72.4 101.2 5.4 > 216.182.224.81 > 216.182.224.95 > 216.182.224.77 > 20. 216.182.224.81 94.1% 524 492 77.9 > 72.8 93.0 6.3 > 216.182.224.95 > 216.182.224.77 > 21. ??? > > The 140.222.225.135 shows up in the traceroutes via our Verizon > Business FIOS line as well. > > Will be opening a ticket with both Verizon and AWS to assist, but > hoping someone out there can take a look or chime in. Feel free to > reply off list. > > Thanks, > Ray > From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 03:59:05 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:59:05 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <2717E1A2-6AF2-46ED-B45B-713F7783525C@delong.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:25 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > goemon at anime.net wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big players have any intent of deploying anything >> >> This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it. >> >> If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no service at all to this day. >> > > Is that Ashland, Oregon? I did some consulting on that project. The way it started was: > - They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building > - US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point, > - the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility "what would it cost to run some fiber" > - after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000, one time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles, bucket trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who were sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit) > - after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network > > The cool thing about the project: > - Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment No to mention a wonderful Shakespeare festival, a number of very nice restaurants with good food and a pretty neat downtown to explore. Need to get back up there... It's been a few years, but it's a lovely place to visit. Owen From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 04:08:23 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:08:23 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <2717E1A2-6AF2-46ED-B45B-713F7783525C@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> <2717E1A2-6AF2-46ED-B45B-713F7783525C@delong.com> Message-ID: <53CDE3B7.3040502@meetinghouse.net> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:25 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > >> goemon at anime.net wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>> - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big players have any intent of deploying anything >>> This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it. >>> >>> If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no service at all to this day. >>> >> Is that Ashland, Oregon? I did some consulting on that project. The way it started was: >> - They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building >> - US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point, >> - the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility "what would it cost to run some fiber" >> - after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000, one time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles, bucket trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who were sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit) >> - after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network >> >> The cool thing about the project: >> - Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment > No to mention a wonderful Shakespeare festival, a number of very nice restaurants with good food and a pretty neat downtown to explore. And a wonderful park designed by Olmsted! > Need to get back up there... It's been a few years, but it's a lovely place to visit. > > Likewise! Cheers, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Tue Jul 22 04:19:34 2014 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:19:34 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> Message-ID: <20140722041933.GA28541@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > > > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and > > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > > Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to provide > physical link, not higher layer services. I try to point people to the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho at this point in the conversation. They supply dark fiber to commercial entities. I inherited a network built on it during an acquisition a number of years ago. The city was much more responsive than any telco provider. Pricing was well within reach of smaller providers. From mureninc at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 04:31:24 2014 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:31:24 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAPKkNb6KHstEqgE1hG1fYDtUL86D_tm45MemWV-fXRBkHrSo5A@mail.gmail.com> On 21 July 2014 18:25, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > goemon at anime.net wrote: >> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> >>> - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the >>> big players have any intent of deploying anything >> >> >> This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider >> was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it. >> >> If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no >> service at all to this day. >> > > Is that Ashland, Oregon? I did some consulting on that project. The way it > started was: > - They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building > - US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point, > - the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility "what would it > cost to run some fiber" > - after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000, > one time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles, > bucket trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who > were sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit) > - after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network > > The cool thing about the project: > - Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat > up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment > > Cheers, > > Miles Cool story, however, http://www.ashlandfiber.net/productcenter.aspx#residential ... is nothing to brag home about. 5Mbps uploads max? Meh, I get more with mobile phone, plus my data is actually unlimited. C. From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Tue Jul 22 04:39:53 2014 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:39:53 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <25523272.6702.1405978573481.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> <25523272.6702.1405978573481.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <20140722043953.GB28541@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: > As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive > L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in > reducing barriers to entry. Qwest had a great DSL product that did just this. They weren't entirely noncompetitive about it, but there were lots of ISPs in rural parts of the West that sold L3 access over it. (One smart ISP upstart in Wyoming even started tying together inter-LATA regions of DSL and built up a hefty business that has always impressed me.) When the second largest ILEC in New Mexico was contemplating rolling out DSL, they would hold town meetings and let residents know that they'd put in DSLAMS if they could get a minimum of 75 orders. The owner of the ISP I worked for went to each meeting and offered to pay for the 75 ports until the ILEC had enough orders. We never had to pay. Their L2 with our L3 was a winner. And we weren't the only ISP that benefited from the services. The nail in the coffin for most of the rural ISPs I worked with was when the ILECs decided they weren't content with the revenues from the L2 network. They started charging less for L2+L3 services than L2 services at wholesale rates. You can't compete with that. Dial-up sucked from a bandwidth perspective, but it sure was cool that you could change your L3 provider by putting a new phone number into the modem config. Where the barriers to entry are low, it's a lot easier to vote with your pocketbook. From rvandolson at esri.com Tue Jul 22 05:54:59 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:54:59 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> Others appear to have repoted this. Seems like Verizon is pointing at AWS: https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=558094 Ray On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. > > Here it is in full: > > #### > > I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's > Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network based on > changes in latency in a simple trace route. > > I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr > doesn't support. > > Cheers! > -Tim > > On Jul 21, 2014 8:34 PM, "Ray Van Dolson" <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > > I'm short some important details on this one, but hopefully can fill in > more shortly. > > We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < > 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. > The issue is reproducible on both our production Gigabit circuit as > well as a consumer grade Verizion FIOS line. > > Speeds are normal (10MB/sec plus) via non-Verizon circuits we've > tested. > > Source IP's are in the 198.102.62.0/24 range and destination on the EC2 > side is 54.197.239.228. I'm not sure in which availability zone the > latter IP sits, but hope to find out shortly. > > MTR traceroute details are as follows: > > Host Loss% Snt Drop Avg > Best Wrst StDev > 1. 198.102.62.253 0.0% 526 0 0.2 > 0.2 0.5 0.0 > 2. 152.179.250.141 0.0% 526 0 14.1 > 7.0 19.4 3.6 > 3. 140.222.225.135 37.5% 526 197 7.7 > 6.8 35.8 1.9 > 4. 129.250.8.85 0.0% 526 0 8.1 > 7.4 11.7 0.3 > 5. 129.250.2.229 10.3% 525 54 11.4 > 7.1 85.7 9.6 > 6. 129.250.2.169 41.5% 525 218 63.0 > 45.5 130.7 10.3 > 7. 129.250.2.154 0.2% 525 1 59.9 > 44.5 69.0 4.0 > 8. ??? > 9. 54.240.229.96 7.8% 525 41 76.6 > 71.3 119.9 8.6 > 54.240.229.104 > 54.240.229.106 > 10. 54.240.229.2 6.9% 525 36 74.7 > 71.6 109.1 4.9 > 54.240.229.4 > 54.240.229.20 > 54.240.229.8 > 54.240.229.14 > 54.240.228.254 > 54.240.229.16 > 54.240.229.10 > 11. 54.240.229.174 5.5% 525 29 76.0 > 71.7 109.0 7.3 > 54.240.229.162 > 54.240.229.160 > 54.240.229.170 > 54.240.229.172 > 54.240.229.168 > 54.240.229.164 > 12. 54.240.228.167 94.5% 525 495 76.4 > 71.7 126.0 11.6 > 54.240.228.169 > 54.240.228.165 > 54.240.228.163 > 13. 72.21.220.108 5.1% 525 27 75.2 > 71.3 112.6 6.8 > 205.251.244.12 > 72.21.220.8 > 205.251.244.64 > 72.21.220.96 > 205.251.244.8 > 72.21.220.6 > 205.251.244.4 > 14. 72.21.220.45 9.0% 525 47 74.0 > 71.6 199.5 8.5 > 72.21.220.149 > 72.21.220.29 > 72.21.220.125 > 72.21.220.37 > 72.21.220.61 > 72.21.220.2 > 72.21.220.69 > 15. 72.21.222.33 10.5% 525 55 73.4 > 71.5 87.1 1.5 > 205.251.245.65 > 72.21.222.149 > 72.21.222.35 > 72.21.220.29 > 72.21.222.131 > 72.21.222.147 > 72.21.220.37 > 16. 205.251.245.65 93.9% 525 492 73.1 > 72.2 76.2 1.2 > 72.21.222.35 > 72.21.222.131 > 17. ??? > 18. ??? > 19. 216.182.224.79 13.5% 524 71 77.9 > 72.4 101.2 5.4 > 216.182.224.81 > 216.182.224.95 > 216.182.224.77 > 20. 216.182.224.81 94.1% 524 492 77.9 > 72.8 93.0 6.3 > 216.182.224.95 > 216.182.224.77 > 21. ??? > > The 140.222.225.135 shows up in the traceroutes via our Verizon > Business FIOS line as well. > > Will be opening a ticket with both Verizon and AWS to assist, but > hoping someone out there can take a look or chime in. Feel free to > reply off list. > > Thanks, > Ray From pauldotwall at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 06:25:11 2014 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:25:11 +0200 Subject: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <5075D5BA-C920-4F83-98A5-60B40B22763E@gmail.com> References: <CAP4=VciHrbGRiNHAyyZPSTVNpabDOJuRLAmBUjK+hbnMgMBP1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRz_9ccn+wGay3_zUaP=xa=4RpjQ1Hp06M8xwF-kedSB-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=prUtD+6GTSQNNaRDs9T2JuCWYvaOp4o0UrE_VYAGr-jw@mail.gmail.com> <DFA181F8-DD0B-4437-9E04-5DB858E9C656@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=pR+5ioHiXVmh+BUMBCczTg1enDmkv9tkYF=t9p0cBS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwzCj++ZrFL2ytBgW1SQVCCTxBqr3mGmh3ERUojR872NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=oDB-cD6j1TnHicfL+ijAATs14y9LidbHD8VUys=MPNxQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150311.VAA26255@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCQ8mQX4aqZL29n7yETbv5U_5FsSF5PRB0QMq=eQ0vt=Q@mail.gmail.com> <201407150352.VAA26468@mail.lariat.net> <CAFFgAjCp8_zLOQs1hG+XfhMacwfuu0_vNf9oyUH9__7ZMLp6rQ@mail.gmail.com> <201407150421.WAA26665@mail.lariat.net> <CAPkb-7Dr27v6TWGsP+fabOyV1GKhiV0_EY7jp0oGhuDRn2f9aA@mail.gmail.com> <201407151509.JAA01455@mail.lariat.net> <60E6276D-5857-46BD-9F1D-01825306E606@gmail.com> <201407160002.SAA15357@mail.lariat.net> <37C5AE02-85A7-4DDC-ABF6-A7C3ABC5B780@gmail.com> <FAB54096-3117-4B43-B27E-38FAA487D6EB@puck.nether.net> <5075D5BA-C920-4F83-98A5-60B40B22763E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAHnQ7eLeP1MHwpqnidfvzR9CUvpszvvJ5EErLQUc49SCoPZefw@mail.gmail.com> It's not as if Brett is doing the public a service. There is Charter Cable and CenturyLink DSL available in Laramie. He's just a wireless provider with some crappy infrastructure that's bitter that he can't "borrow" bandwidth from the University of Wyoming anymore, resulting in a loss of his 100% margin on the service. You're not a charity that's providing internet access to the poor ignored rural folks like you claim, you're a competitive overbuilder. You give the little boys who are deploying service where the big guys won't a bad name. Drive slow, Paul On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:20 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: >> >> The problem is partly a technological one. If you have a fiber span from east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi amplifier. > > Almost certainly, most of the fiber going through the building just hits an amplifier (or nothing and isn't broken out there). Yes. > > But they quoted a price for access, and some research turned up signs other people are doing big fiber out of that location, so my assumption at this point is that at least one pair each direction down the fiber is terminating in some router there. Possibly a fiber level wave device but seems more likely a router. > > Unless that assumption is not true, this comes down to "We don't want your antenna on our roof*, come in via fiber like everyone else" and not having met the right Layer 3 reseller yet. It's not sounding at all like "we have to break open a fiber for you and put in a router". > > (The rest of this indirectly aimed back at Brett, not Jared ) > > It's not 1995. Even little ISPs need to get aware and step their game up. Treating transit or uplink like a 1995 problem IS a short road to damnation now. > > Seriously. The net is changing. The customers are changing, the customers uses and expectations are changing. Change with it, or step out of the way. You are not an exception because you're rural. You've just got a density and size lag. That is temporary at best. Keep up. This is critical national telecommunications infrastructure. Modern teens have mostly never used landline phones and are not OK with inadequate bandwidth at home or on the road. > > Being in Laramie is not a shield against change. > > > * probably expands to "...you aren't big enough for me to bother working with my facility staff and filling out the paperwork to get an exception or lease amendment or permit and let you put an antenna on our roof, sorry", but this is an educated guess not informed. > > > George William Herbert > Sent from my iPhone From wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au Tue Jul 22 09:48:34 2014 From: wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au (Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:48:34 +0000 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss Message-ID: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang From sthaug at nethelp.no Tue Jul 22 10:43:41 2014 From: sthaug at nethelp.no (sthaug at nethelp.no) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Message-ID: <20140722.124341.74707619.sthaug@nethelp.no> > We$,1ry(Bve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what$,1ry(Bs the cause of it but we$,1ry(Bve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can$,1ry(Bt help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... > > Here is an example of what$,1ry(Bs going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > > Is anybody else observing this as well? Why do you think this indicates a problem? Are you seeing *end to end* packet loss? And have you read this Nanog presentation? https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no From wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au Tue Jul 22 10:49:55 2014 From: wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au (Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:49:55 +0000 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <20140722.124341.74707619.sthaug@nethelp.no> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <20140722.124341.74707619.sthaug@nethelp.no> Message-ID: <CFF47DF6.EA854%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Hi, Yes - I am not posting cause of a bad looking trace route. ;) We are continuously monitoring our systems from locations around the globe and we see actually packet loss across services - HTTP, etc. I have had a bunch of off-list replies that indicate that others are seeing the same issues. So we are not alone with this. Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 8:43 PM, "sthaug at nethelp.no<mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no>" <sthaug at nethelp.no<mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no>> wrote: We?$,1ryve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what?$,1rys the cause of it but we?$,1ryve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can?$,1ryt help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what?$,1rys going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Why do you think this indicates a problem? Are you seeing *end to end* packet loss? And have you read this Nanog presentation? https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no<mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no> From mehmet at akcin.net Tue Jul 22 11:03:57 2014 From: mehmet at akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:03:57 -0400 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Message-ID: <FF3924D2-8916-4FE4-8224-90AEF6014E6E@akcin.net> And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet > On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, "Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)" <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > > Hi, > > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... > > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > > Is anybody else observing this as well? > > Cheers, > Wolfgang From wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au Tue Jul 22 11:09:44 2014 From: wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au (Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:09:44 +0000 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <FF3924D2-8916-4FE4-8224-90AEF6014E6E@akcin.net> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <FF3924D2-8916-4FE4-8224-90AEF6014E6E@akcin.net> Message-ID: <CFF48343.EA88F%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Hi, Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault cross-Atlantic. All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No further detail given. :( Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet at akcin.net<mailto:mehmet at akcin.net>> wrote: And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, "Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)" <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au<mailto:wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>> wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang From mehmet at akcin.net Tue Jul 22 11:28:10 2014 From: mehmet at akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:28:10 -0700 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CFF48343.EA88F%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <FF3924D2-8916-4FE4-8224-90AEF6014E6E@akcin.net> <CFF48343.EA88F%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Message-ID: <CA+LTh5V6T2KjGkODpJCmi3KomD5xTgkmR9_j5f_1K_EqFWgyqA@mail.gmail.com> I have always found HE.net guys very responsive, and open. I am sure they re reading this and will ping you directly. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault > cross-Atlantic. > > All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No > further detail given. :( > > Cheers, > Wolfgang > > On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote: > > And what did HE say when you asked them? > > Mehmet > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, "Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)" > <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and > always been happy with their service. > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very > common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am > unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as > well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which > was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted > in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates > that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same > mistake ... > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > Is anybody else observing this as well? > Cheers, > Wolfgang > > From nchabbey at n3network.ch Tue Jul 22 12:13:42 2014 From: nchabbey at n3network.ch (Nicolas Chabbey) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:13:42 +0200 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Message-ID: <53CE5576.6080503@n3network.ch> Hello, Did you notice the average RTT delay from the 5th hop and beyond? I'm not sure if you can trust the values according to the high packet loss, but it may indicate an additional problem (or MAY confirm your assumption about congestion). On 07/22/2014 11:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wrote: > Hi, > > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... > > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > > Is anybody else observing this as well? > > Cheers, > Wolfgang From nchabbey at n3network.ch Tue Jul 22 12:23:01 2014 From: nchabbey at n3network.ch (Nicolas Chabbey) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:23:01 +0200 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <53CE5576.6080503@n3network.ch> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <53CE5576.6080503@n3network.ch> Message-ID: <53CE57A5.4040509@n3network.ch> Forget about it. The delay are correct, my mistake. I should look more carefully. I also been a regular customer of HE, and always been satisfied with their service, especially regarding the IPv6 transit. On 07/22/2014 02:13 PM, Nicolas Chabbey wrote: > Hello, > > Did you notice the average RTT delay from the 5th hop and beyond? I'm > not sure if you can trust the values according to the high packet > loss, but it may indicate an additional problem (or MAY confirm your > assumption about congestion). > > On 07/22/2014 11:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now >> and always been happy with their service. >> >> In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become >> a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their >> network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the >> Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of >> the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable >> oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a >> number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been >> selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... >> >> Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. >> HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst >> StDev >> 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 >> 0.4 0.0 >> 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 >> 1.1 0.1 >> 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 >> 8.3 2.9 >> 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 >> 19.2 4.1 >> 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 >> 80.8 2.3 >> 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 >> 145.1 4.8 >> 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 >> 145.1 4.5 >> 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 >> 144.4 0.8 >> 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 >> 144.4 0.2 >> 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 >> 298.7 0.2 >> 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 >> 299.5 0.5 >> 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 >> 300.1 0.4 >> 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 >> 300.0 0.5 >> >> Is anybody else observing this as well? >> >> Cheers, >> Wolfgang > From bhm at ufl.edu Tue Jul 22 12:59:45 2014 From: bhm at ufl.edu (Bruce H McIntosh) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:59:45 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxVfdoVhzseLj-khtAAi3vNb78VnOQhc3xapu61vxYGwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGXYVzBkukw6dPFxo87MAA6iiOT3pAXVJfFwV5P4MK-b=g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1406033985.23334.8.camel@highlands> On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 16:04 -0400, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > > I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're > > in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local > > officials. > > Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a > long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials > that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the > problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate > increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? Bill, we *GOTTA* get you away from the District. Sounds like you've spent too long in the loving embrace of the WSSC. :) Out here in The Real World(tm) things tend to work better. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm at ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066 From cb.list6 at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 13:01:09 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:01:09 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue? From bhm at ufl.edu Tue Jul 22 13:27:37 2014 From: bhm at ufl.edu (Bruce H McIntosh) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:27:37 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQztXAQeKav9fT10T2F3MYCC5fCRp-hB=Cc=MDrecawk+Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com> <CAMfXtQztXAQeKav9fT10T2F3MYCC5fCRp-hB=Cc=MDrecawk+Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1406035657.23334.18.camel@highlands> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > ..... > > Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any > > but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them > > parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher > > layer services. In my more cynical moments, I'd suggest that that'd be the only REASON vendors would put in the enormous time, money and effort required to install an extensive physical infrastructure - to lock-in that market segment for their considerably more profitable higher layer services. In the sort of cutthroat economic milieu wherein we live and work, where "long term planning" is what, 90 days? 6 months?, how does any company justify such a level of investment if there isn't going to be a big, quick payoff for the shareholders? And consider this one - in states where municipalities are bound by no-compete legislation, a town or city that is forbidden entry to the market because it would be "anti-competitive" winds up having to dangle the lure of a city-backed monopoly to some or other private concern to get the infrastructure built to meet the demand for service. That outcome strikes me as being even more "anti-competitive". At least, if the city provides the physical infrastructure, and a vendor-neutral meet-me point, then any and all providers can come in and *compete* for hookups and customers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm at ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066 From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 22 13:58:49 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:58:49 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWuE5BDZBe1WfyCNR8fM+9zF7T1ma0jpbaqhejFzDmsqw@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also > suffer the same performance issue? As I understand it, both Verizon and Verizon Wireless rely primarily on Verizon Business (the old UUNet) for bandwidth and Verizon Business has a peering capacity problem with Level 3, Cogent, and I presume others as well. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jared at puck.nether.net Tue Jul 22 14:04:39 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:04:39 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. Sent via telepathy > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also > suffer the same performance issue? From cb.list6 at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 14:12:54 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:12:54 -0700 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base > Sent via telepathy > > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering > > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also > > suffer the same performance issue? From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 14:19:05 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:19:05 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxcUdrqwH_jqOQLa72jfMq5LedEWnYSqA8r9Ohx95Y6Ug@mail.gmail.com> Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > > > > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. > > > > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy > for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive > landline customers. > > Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the > peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take > advantage of a captive install base > > > Sent via telepathy > > > > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering > > > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers > also > > > suffer the same performance issue? > From corbe at corbe.net Tue Jul 22 14:20:15 2014 From: corbe at corbe.net (Daniel Corbe) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:20:15 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> (Ca By's message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:12:54 -0700") References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ygfppgxh3vk.fsf@corbe.net> Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: >> >> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. >> > > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy > for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive > landline customers. > > Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the > peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take > advantage of a captive install base > Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business units. From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they can. From jared at puck.nether.net Tue Jul 22 14:25:50 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:25:50 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxcUdrqwH_jqOQLa72jfMq5LedEWnYSqA8r9Ohx95Y6Ug@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxcUdrqwH_jqOQLa72jfMq5LedEWnYSqA8r9Ohx95Y6Ug@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <BBE4F96C-3172-4AD3-809A-A87A398791CB@puck.nether.net> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing. http://bgp.he.net/AS6167 It has more to do with the fact that until recently they were a joint venture of Verizon and vodafone. That changed in February: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec25c1dc-9aed-11e3-b0d0-00144feab7de.html - Jared From joelja at bogus.com Tue Jul 22 14:31:05 2014 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:31:05 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CE75A9.8080903@bogus.com> On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: >> >> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. >> http://bgp.he.net/AS6167 > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy > for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive > landline customers. > > Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the > peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take > advantage of a captive install base > >> Sent via telepathy >> >>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering >>> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also >>> suffer the same performance issue? > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 308 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140722/5110ae74/attachment.pgp> From jra at baylink.com Tue Jul 22 14:36:14 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8362741.6756.1406039774940.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ca By" <cb.list6 at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix > On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: > > > > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. > > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy > for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive > landline customers. Verizon and Verizon Wireless share, I have been told, not much more than a name. The two divisions came from completely different roots. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From rvandolson at esri.com Tue Jul 22 14:46:34 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:46:34 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <20140722034736.GA4652@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <7EA1CB75-3F39-4816-9DD4-3D202305A73F@arbor.net> <20140722034736.GA4652@esri.com> Message-ID: <20140722144634.GA14869@esri.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:47:36PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:41:25AM +0700, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > > > > > We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < > > > 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted > > > circuits. > > > > Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a > > difference? > > Not in a position to easily test that tonight (PDT) but will do so > tomorrow. > Monkeyed with the MTU -- 500, 100, 1200 -- no real observed difference and still seeing lots of retransmits. Ray From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 15:06:27 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:06:27 -0400 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <ygfppgxh3vk.fsf@corbe.net> References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <70375366-1C3D-40A9-A0CD-768A0BE776CC@puck.nether.net> <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com> <ygfppgxh3vk.fsf@corbe.net> Message-ID: <53CE7DF3.1010703@meetinghouse.net> Daniel Corbe wrote: > Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote: >>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. >>> >> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy >> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive >> landline customers. >> >> Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the >> peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take >> advantage of a captive install base >> > Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business > units. From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon > Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they > can. > Definitely different business units. Verizon wireless has long been somewhat at arms length from the rest of Verizon - part of the reason that their consumer billing is such a pain. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jul 22 15:27:16 2014 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:27:16 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Aaron On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually > in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA > comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have > been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've > seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space > on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in > hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work > successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a > metropolitan area service. > > When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've > generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need > for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial > services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they > operate on a cost-recovery basis. > > Miles Fidelman > > Aaron wrote: >> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >> access to it's residents? >> >> >> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >>> free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every >>> layer 1 connection" >>> >>> Matthew Kaufman >>> >>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>> >>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>> >>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>>> >>>> -Blake >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>>> municipalities >>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>> >>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>> >>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>> >>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> > > -- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================ From redhead at linux.redbird.com Tue Jul 22 15:37:10 2014 From: redhead at linux.redbird.com (Reid Fishler) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:37:10 -0400 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CFF48343.EA88F%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <FF3924D2-8916-4FE4-8224-90AEF6014E6E@akcin.net> <CFF48343.EA88F%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Message-ID: <CA+w5D_DShrhFd+LAPhtH5epSeE2_E1fic+eNpevFr+8DwpoZXQ@mail.gmail.com> Wolfgang- Our NOC is always ready and willing to help you with any problems you may have. I do not see any tickets opened recently for you. We have more than enough capacity transatlantically and transpacifically so I do not know what problem you may be seeing. The next time you see it please open a ticket with our NOC, and we will be happy to try to debug it. Posting to Nanog without first opening a ticket isn't a great method of debugging. Reid Fishler On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) < wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault > cross-Atlantic. > > All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No > further detail given. :( > > Cheers, > Wolfgang > > On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet at akcin.net<mailto: > mehmet at akcin.net>> wrote: > > And what did HE say when you asked them? > > Mehmet > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, "Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)" < > wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au<mailto: > wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>> wrote: > Hi, > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and > always been happy with their service. > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a > very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network > I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US > routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent > expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which > eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen > some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if > they made the same mistake ... > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst > StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 > 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 > 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 > 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 > 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 > 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 > 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 > 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 > 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 > 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > Is anybody else observing this as well? > Cheers, > Wolfgang > > From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Jul 22 16:09:05 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:09:05 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <53CE8CA1.6000200@meetinghouse.net> Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued. But... first off, what do you mean by "free?" Someone has to pay the capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes. So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever seen a water utility that doesn't charge? Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in California: - California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay "impact fees" when building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new development, may include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads, waterworks, police and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you buy a new house, you pay for the full cost of the infrastructure behind it (built into the financing of course - first the construction financing, then the bridge financing, then ultimately the mortgage) - I have seen some California communities at least toy with including conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers - after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light control, and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber in the ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later - fyi: a street cut typically takes 1 year off pavement lifetime, unless very carefully repaved - practically nobody does a good job of permitting street cuts to avoid this - San Antonio being a really notable exception (I worked for a GIS firm that built their right-of-way management system - they were a real rarity in good right-of-way management practices) - so I could see building the capital cost of a FTTH network into new housing (the same way water and phone wiring is standard) - but that's not free, and that still begs the question of who lights the fiber - still, the LECs would come unglued (and have)! Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: > So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > > What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they > laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access > for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit > speeds for free? > > Do you think the LECs would come unglued? > > Aaron > > > On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually >> in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA >> comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have >> been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've >> seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space >> on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, >> in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work >> successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a >> metropolitan area service. >> >> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >> generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need >> for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial >> services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and >> they operate on a cost-recovery basis. >> >> Miles Fidelman >> >> Aaron wrote: >>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >>> access to it's residents? >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >>>> free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every >>>> layer 1 connection" >>>> >>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>> >>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>>> >>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>>> >>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>>>> >>>>> -Blake >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>>>> municipalities >>>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>>> >>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar >>>>>> happen in >>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >>>>>> and >>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>> >> >> > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au Tue Jul 22 16:09:54 2014 From: wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au (Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:09:54 +0000 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CA+w5D_DShrhFd+LAPhtH5epSeE2_E1fic+eNpevFr+8DwpoZXQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <FF3924D2-8916-4FE4-8224-90AEF6014E6E@akcin.net> <CFF48343.EA88F%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <CA+w5D_DShrhFd+LAPhtH5epSeE2_E1fic+eNpevFr+8DwpoZXQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CFF4C8F7.EA8E7%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Hi Reid, How recent is recent? The last one we opened was in June and there are several others dating back the past 6 months. I will send you the references off-list. Without getting into a fight about this - having tried to debug this with you guys several times there is better things I can have my network team do than run against walls. I brought this onto NANOG to gauge if we are the only ones that have such issues. So far 5+ replies off-list suggest not. Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/23/14, 1:37 AM, "Reid Fishler" <redhead at linux.redbird.com<mailto:redhead at linux.redbird.com>> wrote: Wolfgang- Our NOC is always ready and willing to help you with any problems you may have. I do not see any tickets opened recently for you. We have more than enough capacity transatlantically and transpacifically so I do not know what problem you may be seeing. The next time you see it please open a ticket with our NOC, and we will be happy to try to debug it. Posting to Nanog without first opening a ticket isn't a great method of debugging. Reid Fishler On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au<mailto:wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>> wrote: Hi, Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault cross-Atlantic. All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No further detail given. :( Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet at akcin.net<mailto:mehmet at akcin.net><mailto:mehmet at akcin.net<mailto:mehmet at akcin.net>>> wrote: And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, "Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry)" <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au<mailto:wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au><mailto:wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au<mailto:wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>>> wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne<http://prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne> Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne<http://100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne> 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne<http://100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne> 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne<http://10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne> 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net<http://10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net> 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang From pauldotwall at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 16:07:19 2014 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:07:19 +0000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Message-ID: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> Provided without comment: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality Drive Slow, Paul Wall From jra at baylink.com Tue Jul 22 16:29:51 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME In-Reply-To: <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <19879245.6774.1406046591212.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aaron" <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> > So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > > What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they > laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for > free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for > free? > > Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Of course they would. But the real problem is *this shit's expensive*. You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at once (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're going to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 people to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE uplinks, and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. So there's a bunch of sunk cost, and a bigger bunch of recurring costs. And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. So you're charging everyone anyway; TANSTAAFL. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From mureninc at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 16:55:15 2014 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:55:15 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CE8CA1.6000200@meetinghouse.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CE8CA1.6000200@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <CAPKkNb5006WEnMdNmUVKhKHXvW6Ckr8PD3oerK-1_ipnWbAh3Q@mail.gmail.com> On 22 July 2014 09:09, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued. > > But... first off, what do you mean by "free?" Someone has to pay the > capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes. > > So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever > seen a water utility that doesn't charge? > > Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in > California: > > - California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay "impact fees" when > building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new development, may > include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads, waterworks, police > and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you buy a new house, you pay > for the full cost of the infrastructure behind it (built into the financing > of course - first the construction financing, then the bridge financing, > then ultimately the mortgage) > > - I have seen some California communities at least toy with including > conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers - > after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light control, > and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber in the > ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later Yes, it appears that Brentwood, Contra Costa Country, Northern California (925), has had such a requirement for years. This ends up allowing someone like Sonic.net to offer Gigabit Fibre Internet + Unlimited Phone for mere 40$/mo as a final price (they don't do promotional pricing). http://sonic.net/brentwood C. From goemon at anime.net Tue Jul 22 17:36:10 2014 From: goemon at anime.net (goemon at anime.net) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAPKkNb6KHstEqgE1hG1fYDtUL86D_tm45MemWV-fXRBkHrSo5A@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53CD6450.30803@meetinghouse.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407211326180.6889@sasami.anime.net> <53CDBD71.2040402@meetinghouse.net> <CAPKkNb6KHstEqgE1hG1fYDtUL86D_tm45MemWV-fXRBkHrSo5A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407221033360.22495@sasami.anime.net> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > Cool story, however, > > http://www.ashlandfiber.net/productcenter.aspx#residential > > ... is nothing to brag home about. 5Mbps uploads max? Meh, I get > more with mobile phone, plus my data is actually unlimited. Consider that AFN was setup when the majority of people were still on dialup, and was originally geared toward providing cable TV service with IP as an afterthought. Back then it was really something. They are definitely overdue for a hardware/service refresh. -Dan From rps at maine.edu Tue Jul 22 18:13:19 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:13:19 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, you need to get creative. The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains subscribers. I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to find the staff to run its own ISP, either. TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote: > So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > > What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid > fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? > Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? > > Do you think the LECs would come unglued? > > Aaron > > > > On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> >> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in >> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to >> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, >> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and >> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service >> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >> >> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally >> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay >> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal >> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery >> basis. >> >> Miles Fidelman >> >> Aaron wrote: >>> >>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access >>> to it's residents? >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free >>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >>>> connection" >>>> >>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>> >>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>>> >>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>>> >>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>>>> >>>>> -Blake >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>>>> municipalities >>>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>>> >>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > ================================================================ > Aaron Wendel > Chief Technical Officer > Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) > (816)550-9030 > http://www.wholesaleinternet.com > ================================================================ > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From t at heckman.io Tue Jul 22 18:24:37 2014 From: t at heckman.io (Tim Heckman) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:24:37 -0700 Subject: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> Message-ID: <CAB=D40giv8fZQScr-FZwv3=a87y8tirQ6QTRQRMKDVwJ1ovnZQ@mail.gmail.com> Hey Wolfgang, I believe I may be seeing similar behavior but it's hard for me to confirm. My network configuration is one that mtr doesn't support, so I can't get a report when we're having issues. I don't have my transit provided directly from HE, but rather through a provider who colocates out of one of their facilities. So I'm not sure I could even directly reach out to the Hurricane Electric NOC to get help. We've been seeing the odd connectivity issues between HE FMT2 (Linode) and AWS US-WEST-1 and US-WEST-2. It's a mixed combination of loss and increased latency, both which cause some hiccups in some of our WAN-based clusters. There have been times where the issues we've seen have been attributed to a DoS attack directed toward a Linode customer, but there have been quite a few networking events that seem to have no relation to a known attack. Thanks for reaching out to NANOG with this issue, it may have shed some light on some of the issues we are seeing. Cheers! -Tim On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... > > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > > Is anybody else observing this as well? > > Cheers, > Wolfgang From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 18:26:34 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:26:34 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. > > FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not > attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to > realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will > need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve > that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so > we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow > service. > > Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a > state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at > published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the > fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house > to the communications hut to patch in equipment. > > Think of it like the power company and the separation between > generation and transmission. > > That's Step #1. > > Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. > > Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. > > Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment > needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people > jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, > you need to get creative. > > The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of > having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. > I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust > it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the > fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust > the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. > > This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH > is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. > > That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant > won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things > like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an > ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains > subscribers. > > I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as > long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. > The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that > can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but > most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to > find the staff to run its own ISP, either. > > TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues > and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a > government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. > > Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and > equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling > etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford > to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in > installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller > ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone > companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> > wrote: > > So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > > > > What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they > laid > > fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? > > Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? > > > > Do you think the LECs would come unglued? > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> > >> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in > >> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to > >> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city > funded, > >> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been > >> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and > >> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling > >> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service > >> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. > >> > >> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've > generally > >> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue > to pay > >> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal > >> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery > >> basis. > >> > >> Miles Fidelman > >> > >> Aaron wrote: > >>> > >>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > access > >>> to it's residents? > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in > free > >>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 > >>>> connection" > >>>> > >>>> Matthew Kaufman > >>>> > >>>> (Sent from my iPhone) > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > >>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > >>>>> > >>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > >>>>> > >>>>> -Blake > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > >>>>>>> municipalities > >>>>>>> to own fiber networks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Jay, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There > >>>>>> are many things government does better than any private organization > >>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an > >>>>>> exorbitant price. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > >>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > >>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via > >>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > >>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen > in > >>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > >>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > >>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable > and > >>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > >>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. > >>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > >>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Bill Herrin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > >>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > ================================================================ > > Aaron Wendel > > Chief Technical Officer > > Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) > > (816)550-9030 > > http://www.wholesaleinternet.com > > ================================================================ > > > > > > -- > Ray Patrick Soucy > Network Engineer > University of Maine System > > T: 207-561-3526 > F: 207-561-3531 > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > www.maineren.net > From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 18:34:47 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:34:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME In-Reply-To: <19879245.6774.1406046591212.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <19879245.6774.1406046591212.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at once > (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're going > to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 people > to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE uplinks, > and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in > providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. We only want them to run the L1 network, not L2. > And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network since 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From shawnl at up.net Tue Jul 22 18:37:13 2014 From: shawnl at up.net (Shawn L) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:37:13 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CAB=D40giv8fZQScr-FZwv3=a87y8tirQ6QTRQRMKDVwJ1ovnZQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <CAB=D40giv8fZQScr-FZwv3=a87y8tirQ6QTRQRMKDVwJ1ovnZQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CACTmXQXnEU94roZ5wOb4dxQjXNTFCkpLMzqfDnwEda7JK2VZdQ@mail.gmail.com> On our HE uplink, I'm seeing no packet loss until your hop #9 at that point I see alot HOST: ******** Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 2.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 3.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 0.0 4.|-- gigabitethernet3-5.core1. 0.0% 10 15.6 15.1 14.1 17.2 1.0 5.|-- 10ge5-7.core1.mci3.he.net 0.0% 10 26.2 26.7 26.2 30.1 1.0 6.|-- 10ge5-1.core1.den1.he.net 0.0% 10 39.7 39.7 39.5 40.2 0.0 7.|-- 10ge14-5.core1.lax2.he.ne 0.0% 10 66.8 65.9 63.5 68.4 1.6 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 0.0% 10 73.0 73.0 72.8 73.1 0.0 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 80.0% 10 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.9 0.0 10.|-- ten-0-5-0-0.cor01.syd04.n 0.0% 10 228.0 228.1 227.9 228.3 0.0 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 0.0% 10 228.4 228.4 228.3 228.6 0.0 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 10.0% 10 228.2 228.1 228.0 228.3 0.0 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 10.0% 10 229.2 229.3 229.2 229.5 0.0 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... > > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 > > Is anybody else observing this as well? > > Cheers, > Wolfgang From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 18:39:45 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:39:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that > its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large > part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of > locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each > ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more > shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. > There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed > on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several > cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had > the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet > regardless of the access technology used. Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even higher densities. Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to start doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies such as IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From clayton at MNSi.Net Tue Jul 22 18:44:24 2014 From: clayton at MNSi.Net (Clayton Zekelman) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:44:24 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Hurricane Electric packet loss In-Reply-To: <CACTmXQXnEU94roZ5wOb4dxQjXNTFCkpLMzqfDnwEda7JK2VZdQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <CFF47082.EA7EA%wolfgang.nagele@ausregistry.com.au> <CAB=D40giv8fZQScr-FZwv3=a87y8tirQ6QTRQRMKDVwJ1ovnZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTmXQXnEU94roZ5wOb4dxQjXNTFCkpLMzqfDnwEda7JK2VZdQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1406054665_416556@surgemail.mnsi.net> We haven't had time to diagnose with them, but we ended up having to shut down our BGP sessions with HE last night due to horrible slow speed issues out of TOROONNX. There's something going on, just don't know what it is yet. At 02:37 PM 22/07/2014, Shawn L wrote: >On our HE uplink, I'm seeing no packet loss until your hop #9 >at that point I see alot > > >HOST: ******** Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 > 2.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 > 3.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 0.0 > 4.|-- gigabitethernet3-5.core1. 0.0% 10 15.6 15.1 14.1 17.2 1.0 > 5.|-- 10ge5-7.core1.mci3.he.net 0.0% 10 26.2 26.7 26.2 30.1 1.0 > 6.|-- 10ge5-1.core1.den1.he.net 0.0% 10 39.7 39.7 39.5 40.2 0.0 > 7.|-- 10ge14-5.core1.lax2.he.ne 0.0% 10 66.8 65.9 63.5 68.4 1.6 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 0.0% 10 73.0 73.0 72.8 73.1 0.0 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 80.0% 10 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.9 0.0 > 10.|-- ten-0-5-0-0.cor01.syd04.n 0.0% 10 228.0 228.1 227.9 228.3 0.0 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 0.0% 10 228.4 228.4 228.3 228.6 0.0 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 10.0% 10 228.2 228.1 228.0 228.3 0.0 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 10.0% 10 229.2 229.3 229.2 229.5 0.0 > > > >On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) ><wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and >always been happy with their service. > > > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a >very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network >I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US >routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent >expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which >eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen >some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if >they made the same mistake ... > > > > Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. > > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst >StDev > > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 >0.0 > > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 >0.1 > > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 >2.9 > > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 >4.1 > > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 >2.3 > > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 >4.8 > > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 >4.5 > > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 >0.8 > > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 >0.2 > > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 >0.2 > > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 >0.5 > > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 >0.4 > > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 >0.5 > > > > Is anybody else observing this as well? > > > > Cheers, > > Wolfgang --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409 From bhm at ufl.edu Tue Jul 22 18:45:21 2014 From: bhm at ufl.edu (Bruce H McIntosh) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:45:21 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19879245.6774.1406046591212.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <1406054721.23334.54.camel@highlands> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 20:34 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. > > Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network since > 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. > How often do they refresh and/or forklift their infrastructure? They're not still running on mid90s optical gear, I hope? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm at ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066 From jra at baylink.com Tue Jul 22 18:53:45 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <20949715.6798.1406055225285.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at > > once > > (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're > > going > > to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 > > people > > to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE > > uplinks, > > and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in > > providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. > > We only want them to run the L1 network, not L2. You and I do -- well, I think there's value in running L2 on the same terms, but that's orthogonal to this conversation. The OP from whom I branched, though, appeared to be talking pretty clearly about doing L3 for free as a city service; that's the jumping-off point from which I'm working here. > > And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. > > Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network > since > 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. Yup; no news to me there's a way to make money and pay off bonds. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 18:54:53 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:54:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME In-Reply-To: <1406054721.23334.54.camel@highlands> References: <19879245.6774.1406046591212.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <1406054721.23334.54.camel@highlands> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222051320.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: > How often do they refresh and/or forklift their infrastructure? > They're not still running on mid90s optical gear, I hope? They are not running any optical gear, they rent dark fiber to enterprise and ISPs. Lately they have installed one strand of fiber per every apartment in apartment buildings in Stockholm, to enable the possibility of renting FTTH fiber to ISPs all the way up to apartments. The major problem with this is that their handoff is in the basement of the building, so the building owner needs to pay for the installation from basement up to the apartments which is a major cost, and also it's currently not known exactly how fault finding should be done. I would be more comfortable if STOKAB took responsibility all the way into the handoff in the apartment. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 19:00:09 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:00:09 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> Mikael, PON versus Active Ethernet versus $topology_of_the_day makes no real difference. If you buy low port density shelves then your cost per port will be higher. BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. "It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place." In my experience that's simply untrue today. Trying to put multiple operator's layer 2 gear into the collocation space needed inevitably leads to that space not having enough power, rack units, or cooling and that's not considering the complaints (actual) of ISP1 accusing ISP2's tech of intentionally "tripping" over a cable and causing an outage for them. Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't need them to. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that >> its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part >> a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went >> in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to >> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total >> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many >> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with >> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology >> used. >> > > Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active > customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even > higher densities. > > Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver > triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to start > doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies such as > IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. > > It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of > residential properties in the same place. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > From jra at baylink.com Tue Jul 22 19:04:51 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20428106.6802.1406055891570.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> > I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest > situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 > with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access > technology used. Yes; when we did this back in '12, that was my proposal: city handles layer 2 aggregation and the ONTs, and we'll hand you off 1q ethernet... or, if you really *want* to put gear in our rack room, we'll cross-connect you to the relevant fibers, and let you handle layer 2 yourself. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 19:08:12 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:08:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since > neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network > anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be > done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, > including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 > information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question? > Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible > that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already > and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually > doesn't need them to. If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling. This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for municipalities? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From jra at baylink.com Tue Jul 22 19:08:11 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <31063591.6804.1406056091127.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is > > that > > its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in > > large > > part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of > > locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today > > each > > ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many > > more > > shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. > > There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been > > discussed > > on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several > > cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) > > had > > the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being > > Ethernet > > regardless of the access technology used. > > Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active > customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even > higher densities. > > Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver > triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to > start doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies > such as IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. > > It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of > thousands of residential properties in the same place. I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. The underlying goal is "reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP". The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP customer. To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs to become their clients* as well... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 19:09:41 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <20428106.6802.1406055891570.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <20428106.6802.1406055891570.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222108450.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Yes; when we did this back in '12, that was my proposal: city handles > layer 2 aggregation and the ONTs, and we'll hand you off 1q ethernet... > or, if you really *want* to put gear in our rack room, we'll > cross-connect you to the relevant fibers, and let you handle layer 2 > yourself. This has been done on a fairly wide scale in Sweden for 10-12 years. We're now seeing the L2 muni networks being major hinderance for IPv6 deployment because of their L2.5+ functions (see my earlier email). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From mike at mtcc.com Tue Jul 22 19:10:53 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:10:53 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CEB73D.5060800@mtcc.com> On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > Provided without comment: > > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality > > “The FCC’s Net neutrality rules are based on the false premise that American broadband services are sub-standard compared to those in other countries.” That's exactly why we all have gigabit fiber connections here in SF and across the entire Silicon Valley. Thank You Telephants! Mike From m.hallgren at free.fr Tue Jul 22 19:12:54 2014 From: m.hallgren at free.fr (Michael Hallgren) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:12:54 +0200 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19879245.6774.1406046591212.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222030310.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <53CEB7B6.2030506@free.fr> Le 22/07/2014 20:34, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > >> You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at >> once (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're >> going to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least >> 5 people to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 >> multi-10GE uplinks, and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- >> there's no sense in providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. > > We only want them to run the L1 network, not L2. > >> And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. > > Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network > since 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. ;-) mh From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 19:18:26 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:18:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <31063591.6804.1406056091127.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <31063591.6804.1406056091127.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222115180.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. > > The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. I am well aware of this. > The underlying goal is "reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP". Yes, but you also want to encourage entry of new technology. > The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that > barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports > on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any > type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP > customer. > > To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs > to become their clients* as well... I have no problem with the fiber owner operating L2 equipment as long as they also offer L1 access at lower prices than the L2 access. Also, it's complicated to properly handle L2 access termination as well, so by your reasoning the provider wants to do L3 access where they handle everything and the ISP only routes a /20 IPv4 block and /43 IPv6 to the muni network, and all their customers needs in form of DHCPv4/v6(-PD) etc is handled by the fiber operator. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 19:23:14 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:23:14 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> Mikael, Let me see if I can clarify for you. "I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question?" First, QinQ VLAN scaling hasn't been a problem in about a decade nor is it hard to split out the VLANs to hand them off to other providers. Second, all of the gear vendors that I've worked with already have methods for handling source verification and port isolation if you don't want to do QinQ. Certainly any of the "traditional" vendors of broadband gear will have answers for this already and unless you're planning on grabbing some enterprise class shelf and jamming it with long range lasers (which most won't take) you don't have a problem. Even the Cisco ME line, which is pretty damn cheap, does this by default http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12-2_25_seg_seg1/configuration/guide/3400scg/swtrafc.html#wp1038501 "If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling." The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k apartments and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities are much less dense. "This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for municipalities?" The economies of scale are completely different for one thing. Second, the phone companies designed their land purchases and buildings around doing wiring centers and central offices, the cities have never had this need and most don't have a suitable building (power, cooling, and security) that isn't already occupied. That's why its _much_ easier to let the ISPs bring in some fiber and let them hold all their gear at their site. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since >> neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network >> anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done >> between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including >> the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like >> DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. >> > > I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use > very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per > vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question? > > Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible >> that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and >> where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't >> need them to. >> > > If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this > warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling. > > This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for > municipalities? > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > From ssaner at hubris.net Tue Jul 22 19:23:54 2014 From: ssaner at hubris.net (Steven Saner) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:23:54 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <31063591.6804.1406056091127.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <31063591.6804.1406056091127.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53CEBA4A.1050703@hubris.net> On 07/22/2014 02:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. > > The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. > > The underlying goal is "reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP". > > The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that > barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports > on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any > type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP > customer. > > To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs > to become their clients* as well... > > Cheers, > -- jra I guess my counter to that argument is this. Here we are still trying to leverage copper and I liken the L1/L2 argument to selling wholesale DSL from AT&T (which we do) compared to being a CLEC (which we also are). I much prefer the CLEC model where I provide my own L2 gear. Yeah, there is more capital outlay, but then I control it. I don't have some 3rd party messing around with configurations and break something and then I have to find them and get them to correct it. Also, I don't have to fit into their L2 restrictions, etc. These things can happen at L1 too I suppose, but in our experience it is still better. Steve -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Saner <ssaner at hubris.net> Voice: 316-858-3000 Director of Network Operations Fax: 316-858-3001 Hubris Communications http://www.hubris.net From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 19:29:04 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222125450.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k > apartments and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much > non-existent. We don't have the population density that exists in much > of Europe and our cities are much less dense. I don't get it. Single mode fiber can easily go 10-20km with low cost optics that do single-strand. You're saying it's rare in the US to have 10-20k households within 10-20km radius from an aggregation place? Yes, I'm sure there are places where this is the case, but then you aggregate hundreds instead (this works even in sparsely populated areas I'd say) and you're going to have less competition, but you still have the possibility to get competition. In these cases I though agree that L2 backhaul by the fiber operator might make sense. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 19:55:36 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:55:36 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <69CF2134-2F1C-4521-8B53-708F0672F4AB@delong.com> On Jul 22, 2014, at 08:27 , Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote: > So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > > What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? I think the project would be enjoined before it could get permitted. I don't think they'd be allowed to move a single backhoe in support of the project. > Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Definition: LEC -- Local Exchange Carrier -- A law firm masquerading as a communications company. Yeah, I think they'd come unglued and wallpaper every courthouse between city hall and the state capital until such a project was not only illegal, but any city that considered such a notion faced huge fines for even thinking about it. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea, just what I think would actually happen. Owen > > Aaron > > > On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >> >> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery basis. >> >> Miles Fidelman >> >> Aaron wrote: >>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 connection" >>>> >>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>> >>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>>> >>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>>> >>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>>>> >>>>> -Blake >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities >>>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>>> >>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in >>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and >>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>> >> >> > > -- > ================================================================ > Aaron Wendel > Chief Technical Officer > Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) > (816)550-9030 > http://www.wholesaleinternet.com > ================================================================ From brunner at nic-naa.net Tue Jul 22 20:05:41 2014 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:41 -0700 Subject: The case(s) for, and against, preemption (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CEC415.4050206@nic-naa.net> On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: > Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a > state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at > published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the > fiber (conflict of interest). Ray, Could you offer a case for state (or regional, including a jurisdictional definition) preemption of local regulation? Counties in Maine don't have charters, and, like most states in the North East, their powers do not extend to incorporated municipalities. Here in Oregon there are general law counties, and chartered counties, and in the former, county ordinances to not apply, unless by agreement, with incorporated municipalities, in the later, the affect of county ordinances is not specified, though Art. VI, sec. 10 could be read as creating applicability, where there is a "county concern". In agricultural regions (the South, the Mid-West, the West), country government powers are significantly greater than in the North East, and as in the case of Oregon, nuanced by the exceptions of charter vs non-charter, inferior jurisdictions. Yet another big issue is Dillon's Rule or Home Rule -- in the former the inferior jurisdictions of the state only have express granted powers on specific issues, and in the latter the inferior jurisdictions of the state have significant powers "enshrined in the State(s) Constitution(s)". I mention all this simply to show that one solution is not likely to fit all uses. Now because I've worked on Tribal Bonding, I'm aware that the IRS allows municipalities to issue tax free bonds for purposes that are wider than the "government purposes" test the IRS has imposed on Tribal Bonding (up until last year). Stadiums, golf courses, and {filling a hole in | using pole space on} public rights-of-way -- forms of long-term revenue Tribes are barred from funding via tax free bonds by an IRS rule. The (two, collided) points being, municipalities are likely sources of per-build-out funding, via their bonding authority, and you've offered a claim, shared by others, that municipalities should be preempted from per-build-out regulation of their infrastructure. How should it work, money originates in the municipality of X, but regulation of the use of that money resides in another jurisdiction? Eric From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 20:05:01 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:01 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <453406B0-E05E-4E08-86BD-EA62268D0E69@delong.com> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that > its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part It's not, actually. The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. > a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went > in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to > purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total > number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. > other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but > I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest > situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with > the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology > used. The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a recipe for exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in earlier comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that to happen. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? Owen > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > >> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >> >> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >> service. >> >> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >> >> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >> generation and transmission. >> >> That's Step #1. >> >> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >> >> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >> >> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >> you need to get creative. >> >> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >> >> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >> >> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >> subscribers. >> >> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >> >> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >> >> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> >> wrote: >>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >>> >>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >> laid >>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? >>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? >>> >>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>> >>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in >>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to >>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >> funded, >>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and >>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service >>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >>>> >>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >> generally >>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue >> to pay >>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal >>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery >>>> basis. >>>> >>>> Miles Fidelman >>>> >>>> Aaron wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >> access >>>>> to it's residents? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> free >>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >>>>>> connection" >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>>>> >>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Blake >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>>>>>> municipalities >>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private organization >>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an >>>>>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via >>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen >> in >>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >> and >>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ================================================================ >>> Aaron Wendel >>> Chief Technical Officer >>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >>> (816)550-9030 >>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >>> ================================================================ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ray Patrick Soucy >> Network Engineer >> University of Maine System >> >> T: 207-561-3526 >> F: 207-561-3531 >> >> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> www.maineren.net >> From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 20:10:51 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:10:51 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <20428106.6802.1406055891570.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <20428106.6802.1406055891570.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <50B4CA63-0EAE-4AAD-9DF1-C770B57F3B93@delong.com> On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:04 , Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> > > >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 >> with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access >> technology used. > > Yes; when we did this back in '12, that was my proposal: city handles layer > 2 aggregation and the ONTs, and we'll hand you off 1q ethernet... or, if you > really *want* to put gear in our rack room, we'll cross-connect you to the > relevant fibers, and let you handle layer 2 yourself. I'd be sort of OK with that approach, though I'd actually rather see the default reversed. Owen From rps at maine.edu Tue Jul 22 20:37:42 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:37:42 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use their own equipment. The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if you look at the long term picture. Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service. If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its > extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a > function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in > this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to > purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total > number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many > other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but > I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest > situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with > the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology > used. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: >> >> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >> >> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >> service. >> >> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >> >> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >> generation and transmission. >> >> That's Step #1. >> >> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >> >> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >> >> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >> you need to get creative. >> >> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >> >> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >> >> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >> subscribers. >> >> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >> >> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >> >> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> >> wrote: >> > So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >> > >> > What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >> > laid >> > fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? >> > Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? >> > >> > Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >> > >> > Aaron >> > >> > >> > >> > On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> >> >> >> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually >> >> in >> >> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to >> >> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >> >> funded, >> >> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >> >> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles >> >> and >> >> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >> >> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell >> >> service >> >> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >> >> >> >> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >> >> generally >> >> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue >> >> to pay >> >> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because >> >> municipal >> >> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery >> >> basis. >> >> >> >> Miles Fidelman >> >> >> >> Aaron wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >> >>> access >> >>> to it's residents? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> >>>> free >> >>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >> >>>> connection" >> >>>> >> >>>> Matthew Kaufman >> >>>> >> >>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >> >>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other >> >>>>> utility? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -Blake >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >> >>>>>>> municipalities >> >>>>>>> to own fiber networks >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi Jay, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >> >>>>>> are many things government does better than any private >> >>>>>> organization >> >>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at >> >>>>>> an >> >>>>>> exorbitant price. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >> >>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >> >>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or >> >>>>>> via >> >>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >> >>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen >> >>>>>> in >> >>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> >>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> >>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >> >>>>>> and >> >>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >> >>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >> >>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >> >>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>> Bill Herrin >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> >>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> >>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > ================================================================ >> > Aaron Wendel >> > Chief Technical Officer >> > Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >> > (816)550-9030 >> > http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >> > ================================================================ >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Ray Patrick Soucy >> Network Engineer >> University of Maine System >> >> T: 207-561-3526 >> F: 207-561-3531 >> >> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> www.maineren.net > > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 20:55:27 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:55:27 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <453406B0-E05E-4E08-86BD-EA62268D0E69@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <453406B0-E05E-4E08-86BD-EA62268D0E69@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxjQUKZq3ypJau=0JA0T1YVc4TfJ2d3CrdU-3+uuhDmHA@mail.gmail.com> Owen, This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and cooling. "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem." There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. "OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?" No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate with us. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > > > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that > > its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large > part > > It's not, actually. > > The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss > characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. > > > a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales > went > > in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have > to > > purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the > total > > number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many > > Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N > potential > subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area > served > where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a > huge > problem. > > > other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but > > I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the > cleanest > > situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 > with > > the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology > > used. > > The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a > recipe for > exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in > earlier > comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly > as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that > to happen. > > OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 > facilities > back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large > numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver > what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 > technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away > their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? > > Owen > > > > > > > Scott Helms > > Vice President of Technology > > ZCorum > > (678) 507-5000 > > -------------------------------- > > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > > > >> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. > >> > >> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not > >> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to > >> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will > >> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve > >> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so > >> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow > >> service. > >> > >> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a > >> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at > >> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the > >> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house > >> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. > >> > >> Think of it like the power company and the separation between > >> generation and transmission. > >> > >> That's Step #1. > >> > >> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. > >> > >> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. > >> > >> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment > >> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people > >> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, > >> you need to get creative. > >> > >> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of > >> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. > >> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust > >> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the > >> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust > >> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. > >> > >> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH > >> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. > >> > >> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant > >> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things > >> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an > >> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains > >> subscribers. > >> > >> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as > >> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. > >> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that > >> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but > >> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to > >> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. > >> > >> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues > >> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a > >> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. > >> > >> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and > >> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling > >> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford > >> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in > >> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller > >> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone > >> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> > >> wrote: > >>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > >>> > >>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they > >> laid > >>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for > free? > >>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? > >>> > >>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? > >>> > >>> Aaron > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually > in > >>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes > to > >>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city > >> funded, > >>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been > >>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles > and > >>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling > >>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell > service > >>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. > >>>> > >>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've > >> generally > >>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue > >> to pay > >>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because > municipal > >>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery > >>>> basis. > >>>> > >>>> Miles Fidelman > >>>> > >>>> Aaron wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > >> access > >>>>> to it's residents? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in > >> free > >>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 > >>>>>> connection" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Matthew Kaufman > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always > on > >>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other > utility? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Blake > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > >>>>>>>>> municipalities > >>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Jay, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. > There > >>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private > organization > >>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at > an > >>>>>>>> exorbitant price. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once > >>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > >>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or > via > >>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > >>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen > >> in > >>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > >>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > >>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable > >> and > >>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the > >>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure > side. > >>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > >>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> Bill Herrin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com > bill at herrin.us > >>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ================================================================ > >>> Aaron Wendel > >>> Chief Technical Officer > >>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) > >>> (816)550-9030 > >>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com > >>> ================================================================ > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ray Patrick Soucy > >> Network Engineer > >> University of Maine System > >> > >> T: 207-561-3526 > >> F: 207-561-3531 > >> > >> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > >> www.maineren.net > >> > > From rps at maine.edu Tue Jul 22 20:55:40 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:55:40 -0400 Subject: The case(s) for, and against, preemption (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) In-Reply-To: <53CEC415.4050206@nic-naa.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <53CEC415.4050206@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: <CALFTrnO9EnYtJ4RBYQo2Quern4KuuCae2_xV7o9V=GihyyTGsQ@mail.gmail.com> You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll close to the right path. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote: > On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: >> >> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >> fiber (conflict of interest). > > > Ray, > > Could you offer a case for state (or regional, including a jurisdictional > definition) preemption of local regulation? > > Counties in Maine don't have charters, and, like most states in the North > East, their powers do not extend to incorporated municipalities. Here in > Oregon there are general law counties, and chartered counties, and in the > former, county ordinances to not apply, unless by agreement, with > incorporated municipalities, in the later, the affect of county ordinances > is not specified, though Art. VI, sec. 10 could be read as creating > applicability, where there is a "county concern". In agricultural regions > (the South, the Mid-West, the West), country government powers are > significantly greater than in the North East, and as in the case of Oregon, > nuanced by the exceptions of charter vs non-charter, inferior jurisdictions. > Yet another big issue is Dillon's Rule or Home Rule -- in the former the > inferior jurisdictions of the state only have express granted powers on > specific issues, and in the latter the inferior jurisdictions of the state > have significant powers "enshrined in the State(s) Constitution(s)". > > I mention all this simply to show that one solution is not likely to fit all > uses. > > Now because I've worked on Tribal Bonding, I'm aware that the IRS allows > municipalities to issue tax free bonds for purposes that are wider than the > "government purposes" test the IRS has imposed on Tribal Bonding (up until > last year). Stadiums, golf courses, and {filling a hole in | using pole > space on} public rights-of-way -- forms of long-term revenue Tribes are > barred from funding via tax free bonds by an IRS rule. > > The (two, collided) points being, municipalities are likely sources of > per-build-out funding, via their bonding authority, and you've offered a > claim, shared by others, that municipalities should be preempted from > per-build-out regulation of their infrastructure. > > How should it work, money originates in the municipality of X, but > regulation of the use of that money resides in another jurisdiction? > > Eric > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 22 21:01:53 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:01:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222258300.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you > have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a > service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or > gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the > municipality or public utility is a good fit. I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill and resources needed. Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 21:07:24 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:07:24 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222258300.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222258300.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRy11-5LJ3CEz5feDMPhHvXFT0iVaz_zk82ojZFGz_CAPg@mail.gmail.com> My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because of the specific projects and cities I've worked with. In all the cases I've been involved with giving the ISPs layer 2 responsibility led to a never ending stream of finger pointing. I'd also say that just because your TDR doesn't see a reflection does not mean you have a clean path. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: > > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you >> have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a >> service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets >> neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or >> public utility is a good fit. >> > > I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active > network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault > finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial > relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to > assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill > and resources needed. > > Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing > you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and > you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, > perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, > is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 21:00:43 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:00:43 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <DDAD7B6A-3FFE-45C9-BA88-F978F90E8CBE@delong.com> The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber from a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever on their own. That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs on the other side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be an "ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can imagine) install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in the colo and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that applies to all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. So I think we are completely on the same page now. Owen On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having > switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some > instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use > their own equipment. > > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you > have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a > service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or > gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the > municipality or public utility is a good fit. > > Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. > > BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm > talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if > you look at the long term picture. > > Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the > right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't > think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the > interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a > "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service. > If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no > change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its >> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a >> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in >> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to >> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total >> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many >> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with >> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology >> used. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> -------------------------------- >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> -------------------------------- >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: >>> >>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >>> >>> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >>> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >>> service. >>> >>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >>> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >>> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >>> >>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >>> generation and transmission. >>> >>> That's Step #1. >>> >>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >>> >>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >>> >>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >>> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >>> you need to get creative. >>> >>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >>> >>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >>> >>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >>> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >>> subscribers. >>> >>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >>> >>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >>> >>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >>> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> >>> wrote: >>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >>>> >>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >>>> laid >>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? >>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? >>>> >>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually >>>>> in >>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to >>>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >>>>> funded, >>>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles >>>>> and >>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >>>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell >>>>> service >>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >>>>> >>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >>>>> generally >>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue >>>>> to pay >>>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because >>>>> municipal >>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery >>>>> basis. >>>>> >>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>> >>>>> Aaron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >>>>>> access >>>>>> to it's residents? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >>>>>>> free >>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >>>>>>> connection" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other >>>>>>>> utility? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Blake >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>>>>>>> municipalities >>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private >>>>>>>>> organization >>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or >>>>>>>>> via >>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ================================================================ >>>> Aaron Wendel >>>> Chief Technical Officer >>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >>>> (816)550-9030 >>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >>>> ================================================================ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ray Patrick Soucy >>> Network Engineer >>> University of Maine System >>> >>> T: 207-561-3526 >>> F: 207-561-3531 >>> >>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >>> www.maineren.net >> >> > > > > -- > Ray Patrick Soucy > Network Engineer > University of Maine System > > T: 207-561-3526 > F: 207-561-3531 > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > www.maineren.net From rps at maine.edu Tue Jul 22 21:07:46 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:07:46 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxjQUKZq3ypJau=0JA0T1YVc4TfJ2d3CrdU-3+uuhDmHA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <453406B0-E05E-4E08-86BD-EA62268D0E69@delong.com> <CAMrdfRxjQUKZq3ypJau=0JA0T1YVc4TfJ2d3CrdU-3+uuhDmHA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CALFTrnM=6HEApskd6SacW26npdC0D9pr04vERAmi81mnkN6zww@mail.gmail.com> You're assuming that this would all be free for the ISP, I think. The ISP would lease the fiber they use AND rack units for equipment (with use justification to prevent squatting). If someone wants to tie up a rack unit for one connection that's their business, but there would be a financial incentive to be efficient. Since revenue is generated for the location; if there is need for expanding capacity then there would be a business interest in the utility responsible for maintaining it to accommodate that. If the power company needs a bigger substation, they don't stop selling power. It might take a few months, but the upgrade does happen ... because there are both business and regulatory reasons to do so. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Owen, > > This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in > home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports > of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports > 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own > layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a > central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and > cooling. > > "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N > potential > subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area > served > where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge > problem." > > There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs > is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services > in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the > wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands > of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a > location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each > extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. > > > "OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 > facilities > back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large > numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver > what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 > technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away > their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?" > > No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How > that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care > about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond > money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate > with us. > > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >> > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that >> > its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large >> > part >> >> It's not, actually. >> >> The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss >> characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. >> >> > a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales >> > went >> > in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have >> > to >> > purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the >> > total >> > number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many >> >> Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N >> potential >> subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area >> served >> where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a >> huge >> problem. >> >> > other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but >> > I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the >> > cleanest >> > situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 >> > with >> > the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology >> > used. >> >> The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a >> recipe for >> exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in >> earlier >> comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly >> as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that >> to happen. >> >> OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 >> facilities >> back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large >> numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver >> what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 >> technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away >> their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? >> >> Owen >> >> > >> > >> > Scott Helms >> > Vice President of Technology >> > ZCorum >> > (678) 507-5000 >> > -------------------------------- >> > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> > -------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >> >> >> >> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >> >> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >> >> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >> >> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >> >> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >> >> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >> >> service. >> >> >> >> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >> >> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >> >> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >> >> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >> >> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >> >> >> >> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >> >> generation and transmission. >> >> >> >> That's Step #1. >> >> >> >> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >> >> >> >> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >> >> >> >> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >> >> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >> >> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >> >> you need to get creative. >> >> >> >> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >> >> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >> >> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >> >> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >> >> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >> >> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >> >> >> >> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >> >> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >> >> >> >> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >> >> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >> >> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >> >> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >> >> subscribers. >> >> >> >> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >> >> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >> >> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >> >> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >> >> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >> >> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >> >> >> >> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >> >> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >> >> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >> >> >> >> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >> >> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >> >> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >> >> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >> >> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >> >> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >> >> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> >> >> wrote: >> >>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >> >>> >> >>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >> >> laid >> >>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for >> >>> free? >> >>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? >> >>> >> >>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >> >>> >> >>> Aaron >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually >> >>>> in >> >>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes >> >>>> to >> >>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >> >> funded, >> >>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >> >>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles >> >>>> and >> >>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >> >>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell >> >>>> service >> >>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >> >>>> >> >>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >> >> generally >> >>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue >> >> to pay >> >>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because >> >>>> municipal >> >>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a >> >>>> cost-recovery >> >>>> basis. >> >>>> >> >>>> Miles Fidelman >> >>>> >> >>>> Aaron wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >> >> access >> >>>>> to it's residents? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> >> free >> >>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >> >>>>>> connection" >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Matthew Kaufman >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always >> >>>>>>> on >> >>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other >> >>>>>>> utility? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Blake >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >> >>>>>>>>> municipalities >> >>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Jay, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. >> >>>>>>>> There >> >>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private >> >>>>>>>> organization >> >>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at >> >>>>>>>> an >> >>>>>>>> exorbitant price. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; >> >>>>>>>> once >> >>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >> >>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or >> >>>>>>>> via >> >>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >> >>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar >> >>>>>>>> happen >> >> in >> >>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> >>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> >>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >> >> and >> >>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on >> >>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure >> >>>>>>>> side. >> >>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >> >>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>>>> Bill Herrin >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com >> >>>>>>>> bill at herrin.us >> >>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> >>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> ================================================================ >> >>> Aaron Wendel >> >>> Chief Technical Officer >> >>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >> >>> (816)550-9030 >> >>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >> >>> ================================================================ >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ray Patrick Soucy >> >> Network Engineer >> >> University of Maine System >> >> >> >> T: 207-561-3526 >> >> F: 207-561-3531 >> >> >> >> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> >> www.maineren.net >> >> >> > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From brunner at nic-naa.net Tue Jul 22 21:06:15 2014 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:06:15 -0700 Subject: The case(s) for, and against, preemption (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnO9EnYtJ4RBYQo2Quern4KuuCae2_xV7o9V=GihyyTGsQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <53CEC415.4050206@nic-naa.net> <CALFTrnO9EnYtJ4RBYQo2Quern4KuuCae2_xV7o9V=GihyyTGsQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CED247.1020808@nic-naa.net> On 7/22/14 1:55 PM, Ray Soucy wrote: > You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll > close to the right path. Well, no, but thanks for your thoughts. Portland vs. Cumberland County as respective hypothetical bonding and regulating authorities, not {Bangor Hydro|Florida Power & Light|...} and Central Maine Power, generators and distributor, respectively. Eric From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 21:06:16 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:06:16 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxjQUKZq3ypJau=0JA0T1YVc4TfJ2d3CrdU-3+uuhDmHA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <453406B0-E05E-4E08-86BD-EA62268D0E69@delong.com> <CAMrdfRxjQUKZq3ypJau=0JA0T1YVc4TfJ2d3CrdU-3+uuhDmHA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6C92A083-A679-4208-9F55-1FF6E215AF4B@delong.com> On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:55 , Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > Owen, > > This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and cooling. > > "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential > subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served > where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge > problem." > > There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. Areas that will attract a high number of ISPs will have sufficient subscriber density to justify larger-capacity shelves for each of them. Places where ISPs will buy smaller capacity shelves are places that will have a low number of ISPs. > > > "OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities > back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large > numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver > what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 > technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away > their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?" > > No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate with us. No, what consumers want is cheap reliable bandwidth that doesn't become slow and antiquated in a few years. Frankly, I don't care whether it's a municipality or an NGO or a private enterprise. What I want is a law that says "If you operate L1, you can't play at L2+. If you operate L1, then you must offer the same product offerings to all L2+ providers on the same terms at the same price.". If you've got that, then someone will find a way for everyone who wants to compete for L2+ services in a given area to get or create an L1 capability that they can share. Doesn't seem to me that it would be that hard to justify building a colo and SWC together in most cases. $300,000 sounds pretty cheap, actually. Owen From khelms at zcorum.com Tue Jul 22 21:10:02 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:10:02 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <DDAD7B6A-3FFE-45C9-BA88-F978F90E8CBE@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> <DDAD7B6A-3FFE-45C9-BA88-F978F90E8CBE@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxvax+ex7_cBb0-xd+8tsY00gUrOCNMwT4DuW7uFOEFzw@mail.gmail.com> I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US. I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there yet. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber > from > a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever > on their own. > > That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs > on the other > side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be > an > "ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can > imagine) > install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in > the colo > and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that > applies to > all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. > > So I think we are completely on the same page now. > > Owen > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > > > I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having > > switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some > > instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use > > their own equipment. > > > > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you > > have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a > > service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or > > gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the > > municipality or public utility is a good fit. > > > > Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. > > > > BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm > > talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if > > you look at the long term picture. > > > > Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the > > right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't > > think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the > > interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a > > "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service. > > If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no > > change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > >> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is > that its > >> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part > a > >> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales > went in > >> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to > >> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the > total > >> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many > >> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but > >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the > cleanest > >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 > with > >> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology > >> used. > >> > >> > >> Scott Helms > >> Vice President of Technology > >> ZCorum > >> (678) 507-5000 > >> -------------------------------- > >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > >> -------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. > >>> > >>> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not > >>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to > >>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will > >>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve > >>> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so > >>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow > >>> service. > >>> > >>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a > >>> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at > >>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the > >>> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house > >>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. > >>> > >>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between > >>> generation and transmission. > >>> > >>> That's Step #1. > >>> > >>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. > >>> > >>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. > >>> > >>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment > >>> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people > >>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, > >>> you need to get creative. > >>> > >>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of > >>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. > >>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust > >>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the > >>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust > >>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. > >>> > >>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH > >>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. > >>> > >>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant > >>> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things > >>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an > >>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains > >>> subscribers. > >>> > >>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as > >>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. > >>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that > >>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but > >>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to > >>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. > >>> > >>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues > >>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a > >>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. > >>> > >>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and > >>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling > >>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford > >>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in > >>> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller > >>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone > >>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > >>>> > >>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they > >>>> laid > >>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for > free? > >>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? > >>>> > >>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? > >>>> > >>>> Aaron > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually > >>>>> in > >>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes > to > >>>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city > >>>>> funded, > >>>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been > >>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles > >>>>> and > >>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling > >>>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell > >>>>> service > >>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. > >>>>> > >>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've > >>>>> generally > >>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue > >>>>> to pay > >>>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because > >>>>> municipal > >>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a > cost-recovery > >>>>> basis. > >>>>> > >>>>> Miles Fidelman > >>>>> > >>>>> Aaron wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > >>>>>> access > >>>>>> to it's residents? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in > >>>>>>> free > >>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 > >>>>>>> connection" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always > on > >>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other > >>>>>>>> utility? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Blake > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > >>>>>>>>>> municipalities > >>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jay, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. > There > >>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private > >>>>>>>>> organization > >>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at > >>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>> exorbitant price. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; > once > >>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > >>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or > >>>>>>>>> via > >>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > >>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar > happen > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > >>>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > >>>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on > the > >>>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure > side. > >>>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > >>>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com > bill at herrin.us > >>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/ > > > >>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ================================================================ > >>>> Aaron Wendel > >>>> Chief Technical Officer > >>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) > >>>> (816)550-9030 > >>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com > >>>> ================================================================ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ray Patrick Soucy > >>> Network Engineer > >>> University of Maine System > >>> > >>> T: 207-561-3526 > >>> F: 207-561-3531 > >>> > >>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > >>> www.maineren.net > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ray Patrick Soucy > > Network Engineer > > University of Maine System > > > > T: 207-561-3526 > > F: 207-561-3531 > > > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > > www.maineren.net > > From rps at maine.edu Tue Jul 22 21:16:08 2014 From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:16:08 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxvax+ex7_cBb0-xd+8tsY00gUrOCNMwT4DuW7uFOEFzw@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> <DDAD7B6A-3FFE-45C9-BA88-F978F90E8CBE@delong.com> <CAMrdfRxvax+ex7_cBb0-xd+8tsY00gUrOCNMwT4DuW7uFOEFzw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CALFTrnO_bORWPnJ_f=RCTarpDkPCPMmsiyo+xc7O4f69uBLNng@mail.gmail.com> Sometimes the beauty of having government involved in infrastructure is that you don't need to justify a 3 year ROI. Creation of the Transcontinental Railroad Rural Electrification Building of the Interstate Highway System Wall ST may have everyone focused on short term gains, but when it comes to infrastructure spending a bit more up front to plan for the future is in the public interest. Building active FTTH with proper capacity might not make sense for Comcast, but then again we're not talking about Comcast. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US. I agree with > you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there yet. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> >> The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber >> from >> a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever >> on their own. >> >> That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs >> on the other >> side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be >> an >> "ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can >> imagine) >> install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in >> the colo >> and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that >> applies to >> all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. >> >> So I think we are completely on the same page now. >> >> Owen >> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: >> >> > I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having >> > switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some >> > instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use >> > their own equipment. >> > >> > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you >> > have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a >> > service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or >> > gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the >> > municipality or public utility is a good fit. >> > >> > Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. >> > >> > BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm >> > talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if >> > you look at the long term picture. >> > >> > Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the >> > right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't >> > think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the >> > interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a >> > "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service. >> > If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no >> > change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is >> >> that its >> >> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part >> >> a >> >> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales >> >> went in >> >> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to >> >> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the >> >> total >> >> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many >> >> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, >> >> but >> >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the >> >> cleanest >> >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 >> >> with >> >> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology >> >> used. >> >> >> >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> Vice President of Technology >> >> ZCorum >> >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> -------------------------------- >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> -------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >> >>> >> >>> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >> >>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >> >>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >> >>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >> >>> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >> >>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >> >>> service. >> >>> >> >>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >> >>> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >> >>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >> >>> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >> >>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >> >>> >> >>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >> >>> generation and transmission. >> >>> >> >>> That's Step #1. >> >>> >> >>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >> >>> >> >>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >> >>> >> >>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >> >>> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >> >>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >> >>> you need to get creative. >> >>> >> >>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >> >>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >> >>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >> >>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >> >>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >> >>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >> >>> >> >>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >> >>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >> >>> >> >>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >> >>> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >> >>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >> >>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >> >>> subscribers. >> >>> >> >>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >> >>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >> >>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >> >>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >> >>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >> >>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >> >>> >> >>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >> >>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >> >>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >> >>> >> >>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >> >>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >> >>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >> >>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >> >>> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >> >>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >> >>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >> >>>> >> >>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >> >>>> laid >> >>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for >> >>>> free? >> >>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for >> >>>> free? >> >>>> >> >>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >> >>>> >> >>>> Aaron >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - >> >>>>> usually >> >>>>> in >> >>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes >> >>>>> to >> >>>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >> >>>>> funded, >> >>>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >> >>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >> >>>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell >> >>>>> service >> >>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >> >>>>> generally >> >>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for >> >>>>> revenue >> >>>>> to pay >> >>>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because >> >>>>> municipal >> >>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a >> >>>>> cost-recovery >> >>>>> basis. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Miles Fidelman >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Aaron wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >> >>>>>> access >> >>>>>> to it's residents? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> >>>>>>> free >> >>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >> >>>>>>> connection" >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always >> >>>>>>>> on >> >>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other >> >>>>>>>> utility? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -Blake >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth >> >>>>>>>>>> <jra at baylink.com> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >> >>>>>>>>>> municipalities >> >>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jay, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. >> >>>>>>>>> There >> >>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private >> >>>>>>>>> organization >> >>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and >> >>>>>>>>> at >> >>>>>>>>> an >> >>>>>>>>> exorbitant price. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; >> >>>>>>>>> once >> >>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, >> >>>>>>>>> so >> >>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or >> >>>>>>>>> via >> >>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all >> >>>>>>>>> network >> >>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar >> >>>>>>>>> happen >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> >>>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> >>>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a >> >>>>>>>>> reasonable >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure >> >>>>>>>>> side. >> >>>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and >> >>>>>>>>> freight >> >>>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect >> >>>>>>>>> simile. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com >> >>>>>>>>> bill at herrin.us >> >>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> >>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> ================================================================ >> >>>> Aaron Wendel >> >>>> Chief Technical Officer >> >>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >> >>>> (816)550-9030 >> >>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >> >>>> ================================================================ >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Ray Patrick Soucy >> >>> Network Engineer >> >>> University of Maine System >> >>> >> >>> T: 207-561-3526 >> >>> F: 207-561-3531 >> >>> >> >>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> >>> www.maineren.net >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ray Patrick Soucy >> > Network Engineer >> > University of Maine System >> > >> > T: 207-561-3526 >> > F: 207-561-3531 >> > >> > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> > www.maineren.net >> > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 22 21:15:50 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:15:50 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy11-5LJ3CEz5feDMPhHvXFT0iVaz_zk82ojZFGz_CAPg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222258300.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRy11-5LJ3CEz5feDMPhHvXFT0iVaz_zk82ojZFGz_CAPg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3A61229D-83D8-4FBC-8A29-C1D431C4CC9D@delong.com> True, but if your end-to-end loop tester sees a good path, you can be pretty sure that the pair is clean end-to-end. Owen On Jul 22, 2014, at 14:07 , Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because > of the specific projects and cities I've worked with. In all the cases > I've been involved with giving the ISPs layer 2 responsibility led to a > never ending stream of finger pointing. I'd also say that just because > your TDR doesn't see a reflection does not mean you have a clean path. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: >> >> The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you >>> have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a >>> service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets >>> neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or >>> public utility is a good fit. >>> >> >> I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active >> network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault >> finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial >> relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to >> assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill >> and resources needed. >> >> Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing >> you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and >> you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, >> perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, >> is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. >> >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se >> From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 22 22:43:32 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:43:32 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <3A61229D-83D8-4FBC-8A29-C1D431C4CC9D@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222258300.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRy11-5LJ3CEz5feDMPhHvXFT0iVaz_zk82ojZFGz_CAPg@mail.gmail.com> <3A61229D-83D8-4FBC-8A29-C1D431C4CC9D@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWLpP9SmbqFn3OVOVhv0+d2Cb5t2Q0AjBRXbgjbO5y__g@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > True, but if your end-to-end loop tester sees a good path, you > can be pretty sure that the pair is clean end-to-end. You'd be surprised. I recently dealt with a gentleman who built his campus fiber plant expecting to configure end-to-end fiber paths using mechanical connectors along the way. "Maximum acceptable loss on a fiber segment is anound 10db, right, so with each of these 6 segments in the threes we should be OK right? Well hold on, let me go to the next building and clean the connector." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From nrollo at kw-corp.com Tue Jul 22 23:20:25 2014 From: nrollo at kw-corp.com (Nolan Rollo) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:20:25 +0000 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins Message-ID: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good home for a Network Admin... access to physical, reliable upstream routes? good selection of local taverns? What, in your opinion, makes a good location for a Network Admin and where in the US would you find that? Also, I'd like to introduce myself [[ o/ ]] I've been watching the list for a while now and have found it helpful with picking up some "best practices", getting use-case scenarios you might not see in text books. I attended Michigan Tech for Computer Networking and System Administration and have been bouncing around for a couple of years trying to find my calling. I've been working a lot with VoIP and that's been my interest ever since middle school. I've been mainly playing with stub networks for most of my life but have recently started working with larger routed networks, leading me to subscribe to the NANOG list. My latest endeavor was acquiring and ASN and a /24 from ARIN and multihoming a very small MSP. I've been fortunate enough to have really sharp mentors to help answer any questions I've had along the way. I know there must be quite a few people like myself that are lurking on the list and I just wanted to thank you guys for answering other questions and providing input on topics that have come through the list. TL;DR: Hi, see subject From ktims at stargate.ca Wed Jul 23 00:10:24 2014 From: ktims at stargate.ca (Keenan Tims) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:10:24 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <DDAD7B6A-3FFE-45C9-BA88-F978F90E8CBE@delong.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com> <DDAD7B6A-3FFE-45C9-BA88-F978F90E8CBE@delong.com> Message-ID: <53CEFD70.5080907@stargate.ca> To take this in a slightly different direction, as long as we're looking for pies in the sky, has anyone considered the "bundling" problem? If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider A and Internet services from provider B (or maybe I want to provision a private WAN to my place of work). This could be done with WDM equipment by the muni in the L1 model, or at L2, but it isn't something that's often mentioned. I suspect L2 wins here, at least on cost. Or are we going forward under the assumption that all of this will be rolled into "the Internets" and delivery that way and competition in that space will be sufficient? K Are we assuming that this will be taken care of by Internet-based delivery On 07/22/2014 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber from > a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever > on their own. > > That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs on the other > side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be an > "ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can imagine) > install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in the colo > and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that applies to > all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. > > So I think we are completely on the same page now. > > Owen > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: > >> I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having >> switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some >> instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use >> their own equipment. >> >> The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you >> have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a >> service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or >> gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the >> municipality or public utility is a good fit. >> >> Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. >> >> BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm >> talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if >> you look at the long term picture. >> >> Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the >> right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't >> think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the >> interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a >> "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service. >> If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no >> change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >>> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its >>> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a >>> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in >>> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to >>> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total >>> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many >>> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but >>> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest >>> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with >>> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology >>> used. >>> >>> >>> Scott Helms >>> Vice President of Technology >>> ZCorum >>> (678) 507-5000 >>> -------------------------------- >>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >>>> >>>> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >>>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >>>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >>>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >>>> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >>>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >>>> service. >>>> >>>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >>>> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >>>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >>>> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >>>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >>>> >>>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >>>> generation and transmission. >>>> >>>> That's Step #1. >>>> >>>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >>>> >>>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >>>> >>>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >>>> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >>>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >>>> you need to get creative. >>>> >>>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >>>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >>>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >>>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >>>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >>>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >>>> >>>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >>>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >>>> >>>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >>>> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >>>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >>>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >>>> subscribers. >>>> >>>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >>>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >>>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >>>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >>>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >>>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >>>> >>>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >>>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >>>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >>>> >>>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >>>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >>>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >>>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >>>> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >>>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >>>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >>>>> >>>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >>>>> laid >>>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? >>>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? >>>>> >>>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >>>>> >>>>> Aaron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually >>>>>> in >>>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to >>>>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >>>>>> funded, >>>>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >>>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles >>>>>> and >>>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >>>>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell >>>>>> service >>>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >>>>>> >>>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >>>>>> generally >>>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue >>>>>> to pay >>>>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because >>>>>> municipal >>>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery >>>>>> basis. >>>>>> >>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>> >>>>>> Aaron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >>>>>>> access >>>>>>> to it's residents? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >>>>>>>> connection" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other >>>>>>>>> utility? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Blake >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >>>>>>>>>>> municipalities >>>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jay, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There >>>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private >>>>>>>>>> organization >>>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> exorbitant price. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once >>>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >>>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or >>>>>>>>>> via >>>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >>>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >>>>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >>>>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the >>>>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. >>>>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >>>>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ================================================================ >>>>> Aaron Wendel >>>>> Chief Technical Officer >>>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >>>>> (816)550-9030 >>>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >>>>> ================================================================ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ray Patrick Soucy >>>> Network Engineer >>>> University of Maine System >>>> >>>> T: 207-561-3526 >>>> F: 207-561-3531 >>>> >>>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >>>> www.maineren.net >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ray Patrick Soucy >> Network Engineer >> University of Maine System >> >> T: 207-561-3526 >> F: 207-561-3531 >> >> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> www.maineren.net > From rvandolson at esri.com Wed Jul 23 00:29:55 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:29:55 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 In-Reply-To: <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> Message-ID: <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > Others appear to be having similar issues. Seems like Verizon is > pointing at AWS: > > https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=558094 > > Ray > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > > Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. > > > > Here it is in full: > > > > #### > > > > I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane > > Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within > > Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace > > route. > > > > I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is > > something mtr doesn't support. > > > > Cheers! -Tim Update on this: - We have a ticket open with both AWS and Verizon. - AWS has responded and felt the issue was with Verizon, but notified their network team and asked them to investigate further. - Nothing back from Verizon yet (anyone here have a Verizon NOC contact?) In the interim, the issuer persists. Thanks, Ray From jra at baylink.com Wed Jul 23 01:36:12 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CEFD70.5080907@stargate.ca> Message-ID: <4785091.6862.1406079372667.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keenan Tims" <ktims at stargate.ca> > If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps > a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a > resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider > A and Internet services from provider B (or maybe I want to provision a > private WAN to my place of work). This could be done with WDM equipment > by the muni in the L1 model, or at L2, but it isn't something that's > often mentioned. I suspect L2 wins here, at least on cost. > > Or are we going forward under the assumption that all of this will be > rolled into "the Internets" and delivery that way and competition in > that space will be sufficient? I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or so. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From dougb at dougbarton.us Wed Jul 23 02:27:21 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:27:21 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <4785091.6862.1406079372667.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <4785091.6862.1406079372667.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <53CF1D89.8050808@dougbarton.us> On 07/22/2014 06:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Keenan Tims" <ktims at stargate.ca> > >> If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps >> a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a >> resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider >> A and Internet services from provider B (or maybe I want to provision a >> private WAN to my place of work). This could be done with WDM equipment >> by the muni in the L1 model, or at L2, but it isn't something that's >> often mentioned. I suspect L2 wins here, at least on cost. >> >> Or are we going forward under the assumption that all of this will be >> rolled into "the Internets" and delivery that way and competition in >> that space will be sufficient? > > I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit > building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or so. Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that Keenan raised. My number of pairs was 5 though ... 1 each for TV, Phone, and Internet providers, 1 as a spare in case something breaks, and 1 for the thing that hasn't been invented yet. The thinking being that strands of dark fiber are cheaper then retrenching, etc. Doug From rvandolson at esri.com Wed Jul 23 02:40:26 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:40:26 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> Message-ID: <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 05:29:55PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Others appear to be having similar issues. Seems like Verizon is > > pointing at AWS: > > > > https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=558094 > > > > Ray > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > > > Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. > > > > > > Here it is in full: > > > > > > #### > > > > > > I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane > > > Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within > > > Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace > > > route. > > > > > > I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is > > > something mtr doesn't support. > > > > > > Cheers! -Tim > > Update on this: > > - We have a ticket open with both AWS and Verizon. > - AWS has responded and felt the issue was with Verizon, but notified > their network team and asked them to investigate further. > - Nothing back from Verizon yet (anyone here have a Verizon NOC > contact?) > > In the interim, the issue persists. > Further update -- Verizon indicates that the issue is related to saturation on a peering link between themselves and NTT. Verizon is pointing to the NTT side as the source of the saturation / congestion. We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or investigate on our behalf. Ray From mpetach at netflight.com Wed Jul 23 07:23:08 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:23:08 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote: > [...] > Further update -- Verizon indicates that the issue is related to > saturation on a peering link between themselves and NTT. Verizon is > pointing to the NTT side as the source of the saturation / congestion. > So, Verizon is saying that Level3 into them is congested, NTT into them is congested...sounds like there might be a bit of a trend happening here. I wonder if Verizon is having trouble provisioning sufficient capacity to support all of their customers? If so, it would kinda suck to be stuck being their customer at the moment if you can't get to places you want to reach. :( > > We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping > someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or > investigate on our behalf. > > Ray > > I'm sure there's NTT folks watching the thread go past, but it's unlikely they'd be in a position to say anything in a public forum like this one way or the other. ^_^; Matt From dorian at blackrose.org Wed Jul 23 07:32:54 2014 From: dorian at blackrose.org (Dorian Kim) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:32:54 -0400 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2BBE607E-C994-43DE-B707-A3122B298A14@blackrose.org> On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:23 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: >> We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping >> someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or >> investigate on our behalf. >> >> Ray >> >> > I'm sure there's NTT folks watching the thread go > past, but it's unlikely they'd be in a position to > say anything in a public forum like this one way > or the other. ^_^; Is there anything to be said that adds anything to what is already a well established situation regarding Verizon vs. much of the Internet? -dorian From kuenzler at init7.net Wed Jul 23 08:15:47 2014 From: kuenzler at init7.net (Fredy Kuenzler) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:15:47 +0200 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CF6F33.2000707@init7.net> Am 23.07.2014 09:23, schrieb Matthew Petach: > So, Verizon is saying that Level3 into them is congested, NTT into > them is congested...sounds like there might be a bit of a trend > happening here. They (Verizon) should issue a list of those which are _not_ congested. I guess the list would be rather short... *SCNR* -- Fredy Kuenzler --------------------- Fiber7. No Limits. https://www.fiber7.ch --------------------- Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. AS13030 St.-Georgen-Strasse 70 CH-8400 Winterthur Skype: flyingpotato Phone: +41 44 315 4400 Fax: +41 44 315 4401 Twitter: @init7 / @kuenzler http://www.init7.net/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 553 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140723/05d839a2/attachment.pgp> From khelms at zcorum.com Wed Jul 23 12:30:59 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:30:59 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US. There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in coverage. In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some exceptions, there is very little reason for a muni to go through the pain, and it is most certainly painful, any time a city considers any kinds of moves in this direction a certain percentage of the voters there will have the same position that Bill Herrin has written from. It takes a real need to exist in the minds of enough voters to get past that and get to a place where spending money is politically feasible. I would add that this is much harder in some parts of the country than in others and this is one of the reasons that you see muni's building layer 3 networks rather than going for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable path to getting repaid than an open system. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:31 AM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast at gmail.com> wrote: > > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k > apartments > and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't > have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities > are much less dense. > > I'm tired of seeing these excuses in the US. New Zealand is much less > dense than the US and has a good municipal style open access fiber network > being built. > >> >> From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Jul 23 12:58:20 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:58:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements > almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable > path to getting repaid than an open system. Another model is the one described for instance in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked successfully in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in ducts or fiber themselves. In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out. It's a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your neighborhood people getting together in doing something, instead of $BIGTELCO that has screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting to do the same thing. Also, after putting it in, you own the infrastructure, so it might actually be a good investment and raise your property value. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From khelms at zcorum.com Wed Jul 23 13:15:14 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:15:14 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwUvEbjAXOf0wTvdFzCPXCuLih5-GcK8MPVfRz8geaGNw@mail.gmail.com> Mikael, Its an interesting idea and I'd like to see some communities try it here. Having said that, I anticipate that B4RN style networks will run into some substantial maintenance and reliability issues over time. I love the quote in the economist from the farmer's wife who learned (assuming automated) fusion splicing, "It’s only like knitting,” but that doesn't make me confident about the quality of the splices nor the cabling in general. They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years is not impressive at all. "B4RN is a case in point. In two years its volunteers have laid 200km of cable, and wired up around 400 homes, without any taxpayer money." http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21601265-frustrated-country-dwellers-build-their-own-internet-connections-going-underground Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements >> almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more >> reliable >> path to getting repaid than an open system. >> > > Another model is the one described for instance in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked > successfully in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in > ducts or fiber themselves. > > In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to > cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a > backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out. It's > a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your neighborhood > people getting together in doing something, instead of $BIGTELCO that has > screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting to do the same thing. > Also, after putting it in, you own the infrastructure, so it might actually > be a good investment and raise your property value. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Jul 23 13:26:00 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:26:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwUvEbjAXOf0wTvdFzCPXCuLih5-GcK8MPVfRz8geaGNw@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwUvEbjAXOf0wTvdFzCPXCuLih5-GcK8MPVfRz8geaGNw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231524380.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while > getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years > is not impressive at all. I am impressed by it. 200km of fiber is not easy to do. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From khelms at zcorum.com Wed Jul 23 13:31:02 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:31:02 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231524380.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwUvEbjAXOf0wTvdFzCPXCuLih5-GcK8MPVfRz8geaGNw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231524380.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwn+7qxOo3o-h1xnOLzzciO_3ypyHyQ3M1ruAW7BFTDcA@mail.gmail.com> Mikael, Fiber length is least representative measure of work as it relates to putting fiber in the ground. Now, its impressive that they did anything but if a professional crew took more than a couple of months to do this they'd be out of a job. I 'd be much more impressed by a lower distance covered but more homes and businesses connected or the cabling being ready for connection (ie homes passed). Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while >> getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years >> is not impressive at all. >> > > I am impressed by it. 200km of fiber is not easy to do. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > From cb.list6 at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 13:31:06 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:31:06 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: <2BBE607E-C994-43DE-B707-A3122B298A14@blackrose.org> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> <2BBE607E-C994-43DE-B707-A3122B298A14@blackrose.org> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTBjSVTsA3FDWmP_frobkBR4LO=mS-wXgkNxxcdNsqFZw@mail.gmail.com> On Jul 23, 2014 12:34 AM, "Dorian Kim" <dorian at blackrose.org> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:23 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > > >> We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping > >> someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or > >> investigate on our behalf. > >> > >> Ray > >> > >> > > I'm sure there's NTT folks watching the thread go > > past, but it's unlikely they'd be in a position to > > say anything in a public forum like this one way > > or the other. ^_^; > > Is there anything to be said that adds anything to what is already a well > established situation regarding Verizon vs. much of the Internet? > > -dorian Fooled me once shame on you. Fooled me twice... Dont by service from companies that allow peering wars to happen at paying customers expense (verzon, cogent, ...) From jra at baylink.com Wed Jul 23 14:41:13 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CF1D89.8050808@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <19576386.6894.1406126473557.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Barton" <dougb at dougbarton.us> > > I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit > > building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or > > so. > > Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that > Keenan raised. My number of pairs was 5 though ... 1 each for TV, Phone, > and Internet providers, 1 as a spare in case something breaks, and 1 for > the thing that hasn't been invented yet. The thinking being that strands > of dark fiber are cheaper then retrenching, etc. IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to 6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta. Conductors are cheap, people are pricey. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Jul 23 14:47:55 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:47:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <19576386.6894.1406126473557.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <19576386.6894.1406126473557.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231646360.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Doug Barton" <dougb at dougbarton.us> > >>> I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit >>> building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or >>> so. >> >> Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that >> Keenan raised. My number of pairs was 5 though ... 1 each for TV, Phone, >> and Internet providers, 1 as a spare in case something breaks, and 1 for >> the thing that hasn't been invented yet. The thinking being that strands >> of dark fiber are cheaper then retrenching, etc. > > IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to > 6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to > think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta. > > Conductors are cheap, people are pricey. Isn't splicing cost a driving factor here? The above percentage points, do they include the cost of labor for fusion splicing of the fiber? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From jra at baylink.com Wed Jul 23 14:48:17 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World Message-ID: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting chain of thoughts occurred to me. If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth. So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would become... and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering fights? Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*? Cheers, -- jra [1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy. -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From ssaner at hubris.net Wed Jul 23 14:55:39 2014 From: ssaner at hubris.net (Steven Saner) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:55:39 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <53CFCCEB.1030809@hubris.net> On 07/23/2014 07:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > >> for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements >> almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more >> reliable >> path to getting repaid than an open system. > > Another model is the one described for instance in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked > successfully in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in > ducts or fiber themselves. > > In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to > cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a > backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out. > It's a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your > neighborhood people getting together in doing something, instead of > $BIGTELCO that has screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting > to do the same thing. Also, after putting it in, you own the > infrastructure, so it might actually be a good investment and raise your > property value. > In the US, in midwest rural areas at least, you see do quite a few cooperatives in the realm of things like power distribution. It isn't quite the same as neighbors getting together to build a network, but it has some of the same elements. I live outside of the city and I am a member of a rural electric cooperative. Compared to when I was in the city on the local regulated monopoly grid, my rates are lower, the number of outages are fewer and the overall quality of service is better. I don't know if that is necessarily a common experience, but it is mine. It seems to me that in rural areas a cooperative framework could be ideal for networks as well. Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take on the project. After all they have a network of electric poles, it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to hang fiber on them. However, I fear that it would be enough outside of the management's wheelhouse that it could end badly. Would probably need a completely separate management team to do it right. Steve -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Saner <ssaner at hubris.net> Voice: 316-858-3000 Director of Network Operations Fax: 316-858-3001 Hubris Communications http://www.hubris.net From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Wed Jul 23 15:11:53 2014 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:11:53 +0100 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given > Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, > even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? > So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. brandon From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 23 15:13:04 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:13:04 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231646360.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <19576386.6894.1406126473557.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231646360.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <CAP-guGUeb7wbmvoanXgO2xLii1GH54ef6ruR8CGLC-+JLTj5nA@mail.gmail.com> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to >> 6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to >> think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta. 25% of a lot of money is a lot more money. You'd have to sell the investment to voters who, for the most part, are a lot more worried about taxing and borrowing for the ever-underfunded roads, schools, fire and police departments. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > Isn't splicing cost a driving factor here? The above percentage points, do > they include the cost of labor for fusion splicing of the fiber? Not necessarily. If you wait to splice until there's an order (hence a pending revenue stream) you can just lay the cable. This also means you only build the last-mile cable to the neighborhood splicing point, typically a small fraction of the distance all the way back to the data center. Then you put in a fraction of that number of strands from the splicing point back to the data center and add more later if they're ever needed. If you lay 6 fibers expecting an average use of 1.5, you'll probably even save money in the long run this way. OTOH, this means you have to have at least one qualified field splicer permanently on staff, which could be a problem for a small system. 'Cause you really can't have the service providers splicing your fiber... just look in your office building's telephone closet if you want to see how that sort of approach works out. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Jul 23 15:24:01 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:24:01 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CFCCEB.1030809@hubris.net> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <53CFCCEB.1030809@hubris.net> Message-ID: <53CFD391.80008@meetinghouse.net> Steven Saner wrote: > In the US, in midwest rural areas at least, you see do quite a few > cooperatives in the realm of things like power distribution. It isn't > quite the same as neighbors getting together to build a network, but it > has some of the same elements. I live outside of the city and I am a > member of a rural electric cooperative. Compared to when I was in the > city on the local regulated monopoly grid, my rates are lower, the > number of outages are fewer and the overall quality of service is > better. I don't know if that is necessarily a common experience, but it > is mine. It seems to me that in rural areas a cooperative framework > could be ideal for networks as well. Funny story. There are a huge number of independent telcos in Iowa. The reason: early on, farmers discovered that you could turn pairs of barbed wired strands into party lines. Things developed from there. > Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take > on the project. After all they have a network of electric poles, it > doesn't seem that it would be that hard to hang fiber on them. However, > I fear that it would be enough outside of the management's wheelhouse > that it could end badly. Would probably need a completely separate > management team to do it right. > Don't kid yourselves - they ARE involved in telecom. Take a look at: http://www.nreca.coop/ http://www.nrtc.coop/pub/us/ Electric utilities are neck deep in telecom - what with SCADA and smart grid stuff to worry about. It's just that other than Boston Edison, which spawned RCN, it's the munis and coops that are the only ones going into retail telecom - essentially driven by the same motivations that created them in the first place ("the big guys aren't showing to provide <x> - we need to do it ourselves"). Electric utilities have a leg up, in that they have poles, trucks, people, billing, and everyone in town is a customer - telecom is an easy step. Looked at another way - municipal utilities are just coops writ large (or coops are munis write small) - either way its about user/community ownership and control of local infrastructure. Smaller communities seem to favor coops, larger ones seem to favor municipal utlities. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 23 15:24:25 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:24:25 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGUSqN3Je-0T+745iqhVEbXfu4qZa=Zk1VByGqknEYJx-g@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given > Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, > even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? Did they not buy from Level 3 as well? > So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? Because that's the business Cogent is in? Underprice everybody but the buyer gets what he gets without any real recourse if it isn't good enough. Good money as a bottom feeder as long as you don't make the mistake of selling a dollar for fifty cents. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they > not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? Just so. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Jul 23 15:31:29 2014 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:31:29 -0700 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible. Thank You Bob Evans CTO >> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given >> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people >> *already*, >> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? > > Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs > asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their > previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? > >> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? > > Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they > not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? > > Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. > > brandon > From me at payam124.com Wed Jul 23 15:33:30 2014 From: me at payam124.com (Payam Poursaied) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:33:30 -0700 Subject: Akamai contact/ Infrastructure,CDN Message-ID: <192a01cfa68b$75fc55d0$61f50170$@payam124.com> Hi Everyone, Can someone from Akamai contact me offlist. Specially those who deal with infrastructure. Regards From patrick at ianai.net Wed Jul 23 15:45:49 2014 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:45:49 -0400 Subject: Akamai contact/ Infrastructure,CDN In-Reply-To: <192a01cfa68b$75fc55d0$61f50170$@payam124.com> References: <192a01cfa68b$75fc55d0$61f50170$@payam124.com> Message-ID: <6049C44C-3EFA-4869-9F02-0E1BCEDEE83D@ianai.net> I would email their Network Support group, NetSupport-tix at akamai.com. -- TTFN, patrick On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:33 , Payam Poursaied <me at payam124.com> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Can someone from Akamai contact me offlist. Specially those who deal with > infrastructure. > > > > Regards > > From brunner at nic-naa.net Wed Jul 23 16:33:08 2014 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:33:08 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53CFE3C4.8080904@nic-naa.net> On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > The people involved in the bond arrangements > almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable > path to getting repaid than an open system. I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon rights-of-way lease only, or row+dark-fiber, or ... were each incrementally easier to sell, having incrementally larger per-customer revenue shares. If anyone has specific bonds, or bonding experiences they can point to I'd appreciate the pointers. TiA, Eric From charles at thefnf.org Wed Jul 23 16:58:59 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:58:59 -0500 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k =?UTF-8?Q?subs=3F=29=20mult?= =?UTF-8?Q?ihomed=20=28two=20ASN=29=20=2C=20dual=20stacked=2C=20wireless?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20ISP=20-=20i=20can=20haz=20advice=3F?= Message-ID: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> Hey everybody, So all this talk about monopolies, small ISPs vs the big bad netflix , muni fiber etc etc has been interesting. Lots and lots of talk, lots of interesting links etc. I'm an action/results oriented individual, and have been working on actually building out a grassroots ISP, instead of just talking about it. :) Over the past year or so, I've been involved with an effort to launch a community ISP in the Kansas City MO area. It's got several towers up now and a decent amount of users. It's been funded by the community that it serves. Feel free to ask any questions you have about the details. It's an open network in all aspects (design, business model etc). It is intentionally designed/operated in such a way that all aspects can be disclosed. We are now ready to take the next step and obtain an ASN and v6 space (also looks like we can get a /24 of v4 space as well). What are the things that we should do before we get those resources? What should we do immediately after? What books/rfc/bcp should we be most familiar with? As is typical of many small outfits, we have an incredibly high degree of software skill, and a limited budget which goes entirely to hardware. This is a greenfield network. We've got Ubiquiti gear for the backbone. Running a mix of QMP routers with BMX6 as the IGP linked over AirOS l2 bridge "pseudowires". We'll be homed to two AS upstreams. Using pfSense as the WAN edge routers. From all my reading of the list, it seems like key things to do in this scenario: 1) Have full flow telemetry at all points to help with (D)DOS mitigation. 2) Do CGN in pools (so perhaps ~500 to 1k users behind each IP)? 3) Provision a /56 of v6 space to each end user. I was thinking of having the CPE with CeroWRT and be multi SSID with a /64 per. I'm interested in folks thoughts on this? 4) Upsell a public v4 address if someone requires it 5) Of course implement bcp38 I'm mostly interested in technical feedback. Business model etc type feedback is welcome as well, but not the primary purpose of this message. :) Thanks! Charles Wyble CTO Free Network Foundation From asr at latency.net Wed Jul 23 17:00:53 2014 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:00:53 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Message-ID: <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner... $0.02, -a On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote: > Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict > peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and > other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix > works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct > peering is possible. > > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO > > > > >>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given >>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people >>> *already*, >>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? >> >> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs >> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their >> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? >> >>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? >> >> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they >> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? >> >> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. >> >> brandon >> > > From pr at isprime.com Wed Jul 23 17:09:05 2014 From: pr at isprime.com (Phil Rosenthal) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:09:05 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> Message-ID: <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? -P On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote: > I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. > > I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner... > > $0.02, > -a > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote: > >> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict >> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and >> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix >> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct >> peering is possible. >> >> Thank You >> Bob Evans >> CTO >> >> >> >> >>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given >>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people >>>> *already*, >>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? >>> >>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs >>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their >>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? >>> >>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? >>> >>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they >>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? >>> >>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. >>> >>> brandon >>> >> >> > From asr at latency.net Wed Jul 23 17:18:30 2014 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:18:30 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> Message-ID: <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic. (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.) On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr at isprime.com> wrote: > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: > > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? > > -P > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote: > >> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. >> >> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner... >> >> $0.02, >> -a >> >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote: >> >>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict >>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and >>> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix >>> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct >>> peering is possible. >>> >>> Thank You >>> Bob Evans >>> CTO >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given >>>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people >>>>> *already*, >>>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? >>>> >>>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs >>>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their >>>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? >>>> >>>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? >>>> >>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they >>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? >>>> >>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. >>>> >>>> brandon >>>> >>> >>> >> > From hugo at slabnet.com Wed Jul 23 17:43:42 2014 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:43:42 -0700 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> Message-ID: <CABTdvPKTFx68KaTPy4Sqkuk-tUegzEnQ6915awCtkwjBdWDaMg@mail.gmail.com> ...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...: > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: > > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point. Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to $NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!" I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is about PR anyway... -- Hugo Hugo Slabbert cell: 604.617.3133 email: hugo.slabbert at slabnet.com "If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote: > Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure > networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and > China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to > scale up traffic. > > (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, > unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.) > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr at isprime.com> wrote: > > > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: > > > > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach > Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? > > > > -P > > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote: > > > >> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of > commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at > scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. > >> > >> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a > peering partner... > >> > >> $0.02, > >> -a > >> > >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict > >>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base > and > >>> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix > >>> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if > direct > >>> peering is possible. > >>> > >>> Thank You > >>> Bob Evans > >>> CTO > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], > given > >>>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people > >>>>> *already*, > >>>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound > traffic? > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs > >>>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with > their > >>>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from > pussies? > >>>> > >>>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? > >>>> > >>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would > they > >>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? > >>>> > >>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. > >>>> > >>>> brandon > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > From pr at isprime.com Wed Jul 23 18:00:25 2014 From: pr at isprime.com (Phil Rosenthal) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:00:25 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> Message-ID: <B248BA34-D059-4F03-8F7B-B3639A20B4B1@isprime.com> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote: > Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic. > > (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.) If this is Comcast’s position, it is patently absurd. In 2005, I had several options available to buy transit from with reasonably good connectivity to >90% of the Internet’s eyeballs (eg: Level3, Global Crossings, NTT). While DT and China Telecom may have a huge presence in certain parts of the world — suggesting using them for general delivery in the USA. As far as I am concerned, Netflix is sticking their neck out for the good of the internet here — and the don’t really have to. Netflix has money. Netflix has many pops. They can “just pay”. They can buy from whomever they have to. They can change their codecs however they need. The “little guy” doesn’t have those options, and Netflix’s battle is really for their benefit. -Phil From blake at ispn.net Wed Jul 23 18:27:23 2014 From: blake at ispn.net (Blake Hudson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:27:23 -0500 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> Message-ID: <53CFFE8B.4090005@ispn.net> That answer seem overly simple: Comcast's answer was Comcast and Verizon's answer was Verizon... Seems that is what is occurring for both of these parties. The debate has been over whether this is fair (keeping in mind that Netflix has a standing offer to peer at their own cost to any ISP with sufficient traffic levels). I can't blame these guys for wanting Netflix as a customer. After all, Netflix probably pays their bills on time and generate a lot of traffic which equates to a good revenue stream. --Blake Phil Rosenthal wrote the following on 7/23/2014 12:09 PM: > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: > > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? > > -P > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net> wrote: > >> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. >> >> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner... >> >> $0.02, >> -a >> >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote: >> >>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict >>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and >>> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix >>> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct >>> peering is possible. >>> >>> Thank You >>> Bob Evans >>> CTO >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given >>>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people >>>>> *already*, >>>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? >>>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs >>>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their >>>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? >>>> >>>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? >>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they >>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? >>>> >>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. >>>> >>>> brandon >>>> >>> From shawn at smorris.com Wed Jul 23 20:08:09 2014 From: shawn at smorris.com (Shawn Morris) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:08:09 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio? Are they being faithful to the agreement when they make no effort to compete in the wholesale market? What content players buy transit from Verizon to reach networks other than Verizon's? On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:25:49PM -0600, Jason Iannone wrote: >You didn't misunderstand me. But that's not the only point I was >making. Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it >doesn't have interconnections with. Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1 >peering agreement. Cogent sends more than that and as such is in >breach of contract. It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept >penalties. So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's >Cogent's. They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix, >with the service they purchased. > >Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the >internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix >as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone >promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight. > >On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> >> >>> Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network >>> (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as >>> anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In >>> Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and >>> L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements. >>> Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing >>> their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise >>> to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes >>> into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard >>> nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the >>> fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that >>> almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's >>> number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the >>> contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to >>> ask for free stuff. >> >> I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you >> are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's >> *fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of >> flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*. >> >> Did I misunderstand you? >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com >> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 23 20:33:21 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:33:21 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris <shawn at smorris.com> wrote: > What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio? Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peering ratios, but surely Verizon would scream bloody murder if they did. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From blake at ispn.net Wed Jul 23 20:50:40 2014 From: blake at ispn.net (Blake Hudson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:50:40 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D02020.4000809@ispn.net> William Herrin wrote the following on 7/23/2014 3:33 PM: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris <shawn at smorris.com> wrote: >> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio? > Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is > theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty > back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peering ratios, > but surely Verizon would scream bloody murder if they did. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that... <best Verizon voice> There appears to be no congestion within the Verizon network, but there is congestion in this little red area where the Verizon user connects to the Verizon network. The Verizon customer has failed to negotiate reasonable commercial terms that allow him or her to send traffic to Netflix at the requested rate. The customer is dropping packets... not us.</end Verizon voice> From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jul 23 21:01:06 2014 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:01:06 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ACE20FC8-9CED-4931-9DD0-54971D91E5AC@puck.nether.net> On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:33 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris <shawn at smorris.com> wrote: >> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio? > > Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is > theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty > back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peering ratios, > but surely Verizon would scream bloody murder if they did. I would love to see the process improve here. Ratios are one way to measure value, but when networks are dissimilar it’s hard to compare them. Regional ASN vs Global ASN, wholesale vs consumer vs enterprise vs CDN and datacenter all make a difference. I’m wondering if the change at vz when it comes to upload:download ratio is going to cause broader changes in the marketplace. I suspect it will and those in the US consumer/SMB space may see benefits. I’d love to see symmetric services from my home carrier. - Jared From rsk at gsp.org Wed Jul 23 22:55:17 2014 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:55:17 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53D02020.4000809@ispn.net> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D02020.4000809@ispn.net> Message-ID: <20140723225517.GA4784@gsp.org> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: > I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that... I would love to see Verizon invest the resources (both financial and personnel) that are being deployed to update their blog, lobby Congress, lobby the FCC, astroturf, issue press releases, etc. in actual real live engineering that would -- and I know this is a ridiculous concept, so bear with me -- fix the root cause of the problem. ---rsk From stopabuseandreport at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 23:25:41 2014 From: stopabuseandreport at gmail.com (Abuse Contact) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:25:41 -0700 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYd+jhmSNvp1qVs=vCxNoiXmFNseZFfbzFKxV3RwymOiw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZvN_4erCz=mdNdT68hhqQPhufo9mVik97CgP3i3iM3hg@mail.gmail.com> <567602B0-16FA-432F-BD0F-7F7285B8C6F3@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYd+jhmSNvp1qVs=vCxNoiXmFNseZFfbzFKxV3RwymOiw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKDGAXauo9K=W4OtMLG+6OTciAiKhEQmFvarEzWxAb9Q=O6jBg@mail.gmail.com> I actually use GigeNET at the moment for DDoS protection and they're terrible. Their trigger detection is terrible at picking up attacks and my attack is barely ever mitigated because of it. On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> > wrote: > > It was none of the mentioned , didn't wanna come off as advertising .. > Gigenet is the company > > > > ok, cool the OP probably is interested... thanks! > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Morrow < > morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to > mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops > which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn , > people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't > really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw > they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell > Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache > service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website > optimization via cdn type setup. > >>> > >>> Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos > protection, > >> > >> 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in the > >> previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ? > >> > >> we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering > >> exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our > >> network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. > >>> Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and > reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud flare > is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards > other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection > against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different > business model going after different market segments. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact < > stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like > large > >>>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't > get it, > >>>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from > them or > >>>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact < > stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like > large > >>>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't > get it, > >>>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from > them or > >>>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 23 23:47:24 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:47:24 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <VrR11o0391cZc5601rR3xW> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4353A-97C2-4257-B18E-DB0749AAB4FA@matthew.at> <53CD778E.1020406@wholesaleinternet.net> <53CDBF4F.2050305@meetinghouse.net> <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net> <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <53CFCCEB.1030809@hubris.net> <VrR11o0391cZc5601rR3xW> Message-ID: <53D0498C.9060503@cox.net> On 7/23/2014 10:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Funny story. There are a huge number of independent telcos in Iowa. The > reason: early on, farmers discovered that you could turn pairs of barbed > wired strands into party lines. Things developed from there. In California in the 1960s Pacific had tariffs for un-francised territories for "toll stations" and "farmer lines"--the later often terminating at a small cord board. I recall taking a clearance from a repairman as "somebody left the gate open". -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Wed Jul 23 23:53:50 2014 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:53:50 -0600 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53CFCCEB.1030809@hubris.net> References: <CALFTrnOLXNp+67zxAWTyxHNmpAj=TceT8LLQH71DDcntCLOCpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRy+yUX4BrhvkFrZx39L4GKMvFHzFmeKFSfYqo_VexgyBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222036230.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRxGZthJ4mUfbSeGSZrEvYGhYMOf6+ozVmoW+hLku2aXcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407222103560.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAMrdfRwBuyFJAyTBdf4joMzxdmD5DXrVmKSMoe85Q=Usz=6x8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407231452250.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <53CFCCEB.1030809@hubris.net> Message-ID: <20140723235350.GA28188@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Steven Saner wrote: [...] > Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take > on the project. I've seen that exact scenario happen in rural New Mexico. The Co-op members wanted dial-up access, and couldn't get it. They asked the co-op board to build an ISP, and they did. They weren't great at the job, but no one else was putting in access ports within the local calling area. A few years later, we bought their customer base. The co-op was happy to sell to someone that "did Internet for a living." We gave them enough money to make the board and members happy with their investment. So, yeah. I'd say it's more than tempting to suggest that an electric co-op could take on broadband projects. From mallman at icir.org Wed Jul 23 19:27:37 2014 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:27:37 -0400 Subject: v6 adoption Message-ID: <20140723192737.108C4B27EAE@lawyers.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140723/d25ba15d/attachment.ksh> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 180 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140723/d25ba15d/attachment.pgp> From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 00:27:01 2014 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:27:01 -0500 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAAAwwbWj9wT_OJkV2AS0ekOCzbL3YEQBhr3qTwBOENU2XzNm9g@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: [snip] > Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*? Probably noone....... at least not without compromising and first peering with Netflix. It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart, Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a little club and said "OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit anymore; your customers want our stuff and will consider their internet service DOWN if they can't get it. You are going to pay us for a fast lane to our content now. If you want it, please start sending us your bids, now." > Cheers, > -- jra -- -JH From kate at quadranet.com Thu Jul 24 00:53:09 2014 From: kate at quadranet.com (Kate Gerry) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:53:09 -0700 Subject: DDoS mitigation Equinix? In-Reply-To: <CAKDGAXauo9K=W4OtMLG+6OTciAiKhEQmFvarEzWxAb9Q=O6jBg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKDGAXZOQyUt7+gvNFTWyen-3dP2t9M_Y+DjuCXakiMgvBUh=w@mail.gmail.com> <0C724A56-37FA-48DD-B4AD-E2FD3B96D6EF@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZvN_4erCz=mdNdT68hhqQPhufo9mVik97CgP3i3iM3hg@mail.gmail.com> <567602B0-16FA-432F-BD0F-7F7285B8C6F3@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYd+jhmSNvp1qVs=vCxNoiXmFNseZFfbzFKxV3RwymOiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKDGAXauo9K=W4OtMLG+6OTciAiKhEQmFvarEzWxAb9Q=O6jBg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4120B1642DCF48ACA84E4F82C8E1F6017FDD1BFD16@EXCH> Have you checked out Staminus? It's run by Matt Mahvi (a constant NANOG attendee). We have a customer that uses Staminus and they have done great. -- Kate Gerry -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abuse Contact Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:26 PM To: Christopher Morrow Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: DDoS mitigation Equinix? I actually use GigeNET at the moment for DDoS protection and they're terrible. Their trigger detection is terrible at picking up attacks and my attack is barely ever mitigated because of it. On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ameen Pishdadi <apishdadi at gmail.com> > wrote: > > It was none of the mentioned , didn't wanna come off as advertising .. > Gigenet is the company > > > > ok, cool the OP probably is interested... thanks! > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Morrow < > morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi > >>> <apishdadi at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection , cloud flare is able to > mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different > pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a > cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like > akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns > like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as > far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means > then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't > Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup. > >>> > >>> Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide > >>> Ddos > protection, > >> > >> 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in > >> the previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ? > >> > >> we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering > >> exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves > >> our network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected. > >>> Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and > reverse proxy method. The difference between us , prolexic vs cloud > flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against > attacks towards other services and protocols besides http > protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an > individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different market segments. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact < > stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits > >>>> like > large > >>>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I > >>>> don't > get it, > >>>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from > them or > >>>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact < > stopabuseandreport at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits > >>>> like > large > >>>> companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I > >>>> don't > get it, > >>>> how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from > them or > >>>> whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > From khelms at zcorum.com Thu Jul 24 01:05:46 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:05:46 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <20140723225517.GA4784@gsp.org> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D02020.4000809@ispn.net> <20140723225517.GA4784@gsp.org> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRyRU+jmtezzo0axtwwuDV+eDzxP0bnNKwpMKNGxSEAGoA@mail.gmail.com> The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective in most scenarios. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: > > I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that... > > I would love to see Verizon invest the resources (both financial and > personnel) that are being deployed to update their blog, lobby Congress, > lobby the FCC, astroturf, issue press releases, etc. in actual real > live engineering that would -- and I know this is a ridiculous concept, > so bear with me -- fix the root cause of the problem. > > ---rsk > From mpetach at netflight.com Thu Jul 24 01:32:27 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:32:27 -0700 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbWj9wT_OJkV2AS0ekOCzbL3YEQBhr3qTwBOENU2XzNm9g@mail.gmail.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAAAwwbWj9wT_OJkV2AS0ekOCzbL3YEQBhr3qTwBOENU2XzNm9g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=o2HSdDpOzn0G+tZJuw=o7qQKZs1HsMFwrjTddvKdX2Vw@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > [snip] > > Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*? > > Probably noone....... at least not without compromising and first > peering with Netflix. > > It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart, > Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix, > Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com, > Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a > little club and said > > > "OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit > anymore; your customers want our stuff and will consider their > internet service DOWN if they can't get it. You are going to pay us > for a fast lane to our content now. If you want it, please start > sending us your bids, now." > > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > -- > -JH > > Any discussions among some subsets of those named entities that may or may not have ever occurred may have quickly stumbled across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_in_restraint_of_trade and decided that colluding to form such a cartel might potentially be a Bad Thing(tm), at which point those discussions which may not have indeed ever happened instead adjourned to the bar for much safer forms of discourse. Matt From dougb at dougbarton.us Thu Jul 24 01:51:04 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:51:04 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRyRU+jmtezzo0axtwwuDV+eDzxP0bnNKwpMKNGxSEAGoA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D02020.4000809@ispn.net> <20140723225517.GA4784@gsp.org> <CAMrdfRyRU+jmtezzo0axtwwuDV+eDzxP0bnNKwpMKNGxSEAGoA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D06688.70303@dougbarton.us> On 07/23/2014 06:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective > in most scenarios. No, the problem is that those companies don't define "the problem" the same way that we do. :) Doug From list at satchell.net Thu Jul 24 03:07:37 2014 From: list at satchell.net (list) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:07:37 -0700 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53D06688.70303@dougbarton.us> References: <CAGL1wDSyE4zu0tQYfdgamzysMu0LinJiyC98nckPmO8ujjEy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5934105.6686.1405974494265.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAGL1wDR00DEBRVubQPsRaFxi8crBiuYCoU9W_nVMjN7VN6sJig@mail.gmail.com> <20140723200809.GB79473@smorris.com> <CAP-guGXDF-qz4xO0baV6Gmp31+8BkFKAiYs43DeSu-u3RurwcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D02020.4000809@ispn.net> <20140723225517.GA4784@gsp.org> <CAMrdfRyRU+jmtezzo0axtwwuDV+eDzxP0bnNKwpMKNGxSEAGoA@mail.gmail.com> <53D06688.70303@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <53D07879.9000502@satchell.net> On 07/23/2014 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/23/2014 06:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote: >> The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective >> in most scenarios. > > No, the problem is that those companies don't define "the problem" the > same way that we do. :) +1 I would go a little farther. Certain market/MBA/investor types see engineering as a "risk" to which a business case has to be formed and accepted. PR et al is considered "damage control", and sometimes gets lumped in with advertising and such. The Powers That Be think "going to the mat" is a more sure way to protect their profits, bonus, and jobs than risking their life on the actions of those weird, hard-to-control propeller-heads. From John_Brzozowski at Cable.Comcast.com Thu Jul 24 15:08:39 2014 From: John_Brzozowski at Cable.Comcast.com (Brzozowski, John) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:08:39 +0000 Subject: Comcast IPv6 Milestone Message-ID: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network Thank you, John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com ========================================= From lists at sadiqs.com Thu Jul 24 15:14:12 2014 From: lists at sadiqs.com (Sadiq Saif) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:14:12 -0400 Subject: Comcast IPv6 Milestone In-Reply-To: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <53D122C4.4080107@sadiqs.com> On 7/24/2014 11:08, Brzozowski, John wrote: > FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: > > http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network > > Thank you, > > John "we recently crossed 1Tb/s of Internet facing, native IPv6 traffic." Achievement unlocked. Nice job. -- Sadiq Saif XMPP - staticsafe at jabber.org From iggdawg at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 15:17:37 2014 From: iggdawg at gmail.com (Ian Bowers) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:17:37 -0400 Subject: Comcast IPv6 Milestone In-Reply-To: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <CAOtTuaqj8pivdAFDZjPsjOW3K6zkhcAMT_3fLy77brkUpfumug@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for sharing! Would LOVE to see something like this from Verizon about FioS. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Brzozowski, John < John_Brzozowski at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: > > > http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network > > Thank you, > > John > ========================================= > John Jason Brzozowski > Comcast Cable > w) www.comcast6.net > e) john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com > ========================================= > > > > > From dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com Thu Jul 24 15:38:21 2014 From: dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com (David Hubbard) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:38:21 -0400 Subject: Comcast IPv6 Milestone References: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <CAOtTuaqj8pivdAFDZjPsjOW3K6zkhcAMT_3fLy77brkUpfumug@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <FCD26398C5EDE746BFC47F43EA52A17305A15F91@dino.ad.hostasaurus.com> Fios would have to start deploying IPv6 to reach 100% deployment. Their press release should be coming in 2019. David -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Bowers Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:18 AM To: Brzozowski, John Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Milestone Thank you for sharing! Would LOVE to see something like this from Verizon about FioS. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Brzozowski, John < John_Brzozowski at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > FYI - please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: > > > http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milest > one-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network > > Thank you, > > John > ========================================= > John Jason Brzozowski > Comcast Cable > w) www.comcast6.net > e) john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com > ========================================= > > > > > From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:14:58 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:14:58 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue Message-ID: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I know this isn't precisely on topic but I'm having an issue that I could use some assistance with. I'm currently seeing a very interesting issue for a single server. File transfers from Server A to Server B are relatively slow and not using up much of the circuit. Upon further inspection the TCP window size remains at default 65535 and window scaling doesn't negotiate. What's interesting is this is only affecting a single server and only when traffic is going over the WAN circuit. Testing from Server A to any server on it's network shows it is negotiating window scaling just fine. Below I'll try and draw out a better idea of what is happening. Let the letters represent the server in question and let the .# represent which subnet they are on to show whether transversal of the WAN circuit is occurring. Server A.1 -> Server B.2 = No window scaling Server A.1 -> Server C.1 = Window scaling Server B.2 -> Server A.1 = Window scaling Server C.1 -> Server B.2 = Window scaling The net result here is when window scaling is properly being used I'm seeing about 30-40 Mbps of bandwidth usage, without scaling I'm only seeing 2.8Mbps. Any thoughts? From dot at dotat.at Thu Jul 24 16:25:49 2014 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:25:49 +0100 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > What's interesting is this is only affecting a single server and only > when traffic is going over the WAN circuit. Testing from Server A to any > server on it's network shows it is negotiating window scaling just fine. Check your firewall isn't buggering about with TCP options. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ South German Bight, East Humber: Northeasterly 4 or 5. Slight, occasionally moderate. Mainly fair. Moderate or good. From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:30:15 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:30:15 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. Physical flow is as below. Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> Cisco 3750x stack -> Server B On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at> wrote: > Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > > > What's interesting is this is only affecting a single server and only > > when traffic is going over the WAN circuit. Testing from Server A to any > > server on it's network shows it is negotiating window scaling just fine. > > Check your firewall isn't buggering about with TCP options. > > Tony. > -- > f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ > South German Bight, East Humber: Northeasterly 4 or 5. Slight, occasionally > moderate. Mainly fair. Moderate or good. > From paul.basov at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 09:10:22 2014 From: paul.basov at gmail.com (hayden) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:10:22 +0400 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice? In-Reply-To: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> Message-ID: <6B420B44-A6BF-40A6-8949-413350770DAD@gmail.com> Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how much licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP? Also, Kansas.. Are you concerned that you’ll have to compete with Google Fiber at some point? On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:58, charles at thefnf.org wrote: > Hey everybody, > > So all this talk about monopolies, small ISPs vs the big bad netflix , muni fiber etc etc has been interesting. Lots and lots of talk, lots of interesting links etc. > > I'm an action/results oriented individual, and have been working on actually building out a grassroots ISP, instead of just talking about it. :) > > Over the past year or so, I've been involved with an effort to launch a community ISP in the Kansas City MO area. It's got several towers up now and a decent amount of users. It's been funded by the community that it serves. Feel free to ask any questions you have about the details. It's an open network in all aspects (design, business model etc). It is intentionally designed/operated in such a way that all aspects can be disclosed. > > We are now ready to take the next step and obtain an ASN and v6 space (also looks like we can get a /24 of v4 space as well). > > What are the things that we should do before we get those resources? What should we do immediately after? What books/rfc/bcp should we be most familiar with? > > As is typical of many small outfits, we have an incredibly high degree of software skill, and a limited budget which goes entirely to hardware. > > This is a greenfield network. We've got Ubiquiti gear for the backbone. Running a mix of QMP routers with BMX6 as the IGP linked over AirOS l2 bridge "pseudowires". We'll be homed to two AS upstreams. Using pfSense as the WAN edge routers. > > From all my reading of the list, it seems like key things to do in this scenario: > > 1) Have full flow telemetry at all points to help with (D)DOS mitigation. > 2) Do CGN in pools (so perhaps ~500 to 1k users behind each IP)? > 3) Provision a /56 of v6 space to each end user. I was thinking of having the CPE with CeroWRT and be multi SSID with a /64 per. I'm interested in folks thoughts on this? > 4) Upsell a public v4 address if someone requires it > 5) Of course implement bcp38 > > I'm mostly interested in technical feedback. Business model etc type feedback is welcome as well, but not the primary purpose of this message. :) > > Thanks! > > Charles Wyble > CTO Free Network Foundation From rvandolson at esri.com Thu Jul 24 16:33:37 2014 From: rvandolson at esri.com (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:33:37 -0700 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> Message-ID: <20140724163337.GA28338@esri.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 07:40:26PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 05:29:55PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > Others appear to be having similar issues. Seems like Verizon is > > > pointing at AWS: > > > > > > https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=558094 > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: > > > > Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. > > > > > > > > Here it is in full: > > > > > > > > #### > > > > > > > > I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane > > > > Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within > > > > Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace > > > > route. > > > > > > > > I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is > > > > something mtr doesn't support. > > > > > > > > Cheers! -Tim > > > > Update on this: > > > > - We have a ticket open with both AWS and Verizon. > > - AWS has responded and felt the issue was with Verizon, but notified > > their network team and asked them to investigate further. > > - Nothing back from Verizon yet (anyone here have a Verizon NOC > > contact?) > > > > In the interim, the issue persists. > > > > Further update -- Verizon indicates that the issue is related to > saturation on a peering link between themselves and NTT. Verizon is > pointing to the NTT side as the source of the saturation / congestion. > > We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping > someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or > investigate on our behalf. > > Ray To close the loop on this one, Amazon made a change for us and shifted their peering point from NTT Ashburn to NTT Dallas. This helped out tremendously, and although we still see times where things are "slower", it's at least not 100KB/sec slow. :) Appreciate all the responses received. Ray From michael at supermathie.net Thu Jul 24 16:35:02 2014 From: michael at supermathie.net (Michael Brown) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:35:02 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <53D135B6.2060904@supermathie.net> On 14-07-24 12:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> What's interesting is this is only affecting a single server and only >> when traffic is going over the WAN circuit. Testing from Server A to any >> server on it's network shows it is negotiating window scaling just fine. > Check your firewall isn't buggering about with TCP options. > > Tony. This, exactly. I diagnosed this issue a while back with our Checkpoint firewall - it didn't understand TCP window scaling so it would blindly zero out the field and cause nightmares. M. -- Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, | if necessary. - Brian From michael at supermathie.net Thu Jul 24 16:39:08 2014 From: michael at supermathie.net (Michael Brown) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:39:08 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote: > Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. > > Physical flow is as below. > > Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> Cisco > 3750x stack -> Server B > I blame the cloud. Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server B (and vice-versa!). Does it get modified en route? M. -- Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, | if necessary. - Brian From joshbaird at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:39:28 2014 From: joshbaird at gmail.com (Josh Baird) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:39:28 -0400 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice? In-Reply-To: <6B420B44-A6BF-40A6-8949-413350770DAD@gmail.com> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> <6B420B44-A6BF-40A6-8949-413350770DAD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CABmW_Pd-H8s7JxUpX9KMPg-3g4X9Yz2NTkps_ahATngmQ5UcWg@mail.gmail.com> FCC licensing? No licenses as long as you operate in unlicensed bands (ie, 900mhz/2.4ghz/5). On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:10 AM, hayden <paul.basov at gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how much > licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP? > Also, Kansas.. Are you concerned that you’ll have to compete with Google > Fiber at some point? > > On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:58, charles at thefnf.org wrote: > > > Hey everybody, > > > > So all this talk about monopolies, small ISPs vs the big bad netflix , > muni fiber etc etc has been interesting. Lots and lots of talk, lots of > interesting links etc. > > > > I'm an action/results oriented individual, and have been working on > actually building out a grassroots ISP, instead of just talking about it. :) > > > > Over the past year or so, I've been involved with an effort to launch a > community ISP in the Kansas City MO area. It's got several towers up now > and a decent amount of users. It's been funded by the community that it > serves. Feel free to ask any questions you have about the details. It's an > open network in all aspects (design, business model etc). It is > intentionally designed/operated in such a way that all aspects can be > disclosed. > > > > We are now ready to take the next step and obtain an ASN and v6 space > (also looks like we can get a /24 of v4 space as well). > > > > What are the things that we should do before we get those resources? > What should we do immediately after? What books/rfc/bcp should we be most > familiar with? > > > > As is typical of many small outfits, we have an incredibly high degree > of software skill, and a limited budget which goes entirely to hardware. > > > > This is a greenfield network. We've got Ubiquiti gear for the backbone. > Running a mix of QMP routers with BMX6 as the IGP linked over AirOS l2 > bridge "pseudowires". We'll be homed to two AS upstreams. Using pfSense as > the WAN edge routers. > > > > From all my reading of the list, it seems like key things to do in this > scenario: > > > > 1) Have full flow telemetry at all points to help with (D)DOS mitigation. > > 2) Do CGN in pools (so perhaps ~500 to 1k users behind each IP)? > > 3) Provision a /56 of v6 space to each end user. I was thinking of > having the CPE with CeroWRT and be multi SSID with a /64 per. I'm > interested in folks thoughts on this? > > 4) Upsell a public v4 address if someone requires it > > 5) Of course implement bcp38 > > > > I'm mostly interested in technical feedback. Business model etc type > feedback is welcome as well, but not the primary purpose of this message. :) > > > > Thanks! > > > > Charles Wyble > > CTO Free Network Foundation > > From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:47:49 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:47:49 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> Message-ID: <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> Hi Machael, Let me setup another packet capture at each side to see if the initial packets are being modified at all. Thanks, On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Michael Brown <michael at supermathie.net> wrote: > On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote: > > Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. > > > > Physical flow is as below. > > > > Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> > Cisco > > 3750x stack -> Server B > > > I blame the cloud. > > Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server B > (and vice-versa!). Does it get modified en route? > > M. > > -- > Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour > Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine > michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, > | if necessary. - Brian > > From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:51:30 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:51:30 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishing in the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing this. Server A is able to properly TCP window scale for any local traffic. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Machael, > > Let me setup another packet capture at each side to see if the initial > packets are being modified at all. > > Thanks, > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Michael Brown <michael at supermathie.net> > wrote: > >> On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote: >> > Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. >> > >> > Physical flow is as below. >> > >> > Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> >> Cisco >> > 3750x stack -> Server B >> > >> I blame the cloud. >> >> Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server B >> (and vice-versa!). Does it get modified en route? >> >> M. >> >> -- >> Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour >> Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine >> michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, >> | if necessary. - Brian >> >> > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jul 24 16:51:31 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:51:31 -0400 Subject: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:31:06 -0700." <CAD6AjGTBjSVTsA3FDWmP_frobkBR4LO=mS-wXgkNxxcdNsqFZw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140722033150.GA4147@esri.com> <CAB=D40hD-KANT0hXV5Pz1xT0O2zeot0=+8_pBcV7o5iACm5LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140722055459.GA6624@esri.com> <20140723002954.GA23745@esri.com> <20140723024026.GA25815@esri.com> <CAEmG1=qeijUo2DXmoCKC-ooVTkpgUOuuwpkAWGyoVKVEnH_Z4A@mail.gmail.com> <2BBE607E-C994-43DE-B707-A3122B298A14@blackrose.org> <CAD6AjGTBjSVTsA3FDWmP_frobkBR4LO=mS-wXgkNxxcdNsqFZw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <14968.1406220691@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:31:06 -0700, Ca By said: > Fooled me once shame on you. Fooled me twice... Dont by service from > companies that allow peering wars to happen at paying customers expense > (verzon, cogent, ...) There's one coax coming into my domicile, and the owner of the other end of the cable isn't ripping me off *too* much, and the service pretty much works as advertised. There's one pair of twisted copper coming to a punchdown block just outside, and neither the owner of the copper or their competitors seem to be motivated to provide a DSL package I consider really acceptable. Now, there's at least one DSL provider that has an offering that I could deal with if the owner of the cable was in fact unable to deliver the service, but under these conditions I'm not feeling very motivated to change providers to make a political statement.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140724/50723e12/attachment.pgp> From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Thu Jul 24 17:00:21 2014 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:00:21 +0000 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> Message-ID: <CFF6B295.DB0ED%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr at latency.net> wrote: >Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure >networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and >China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to >scale up traffic. > >(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood¹s posts to >broadbandreports, unfortunately I don¹t have a citation handy.) I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add capacity as you¹d expect. Jason From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jul 24 17:04:21 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis Kletnieks) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:04:21 -0400 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. Message-ID: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> So the EFF is pushing development of an open CPU router https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/building-open-wireless-router https://openwireless.org/ It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software (which works pretty well in my own experience). What will possibly be interesting in this forum is that it's explicitly targeting having open guest wireless access (unlike the stuff being pushed by some ISPs, where you can roam but only to other customers of the same ISP). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140724/aca860a7/attachment.pgp> From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Thu Jul 24 17:21:40 2014 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:21:40 +0000 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <CFF6B867.DB108%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> On 7/24/14, 1:04 PM, "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: >It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software >(which works pretty well in my own experience). Agree - CeroWRT works well. We at Comcast worked with Dave Taht on CeroWRT to explore and understand approaches to resolving Buffer Bloat. So it¹s nice to see that it is seeing other applications like this. I also like the secure method for software updates in this release. Jason From mpetach at netflight.com Thu Jul 24 17:23:33 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:23:33 -0700 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishy in > the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp > window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing > this. Server A is able to properly TCP window scale for any local traffic. > > Remember, the WAN cloud is just that, a cloud; it's not likely to be a single link underneath it all; so one bad link/bad port/bad device in the cloud can affect just a sub-portion of the traffic, depending on the 5-tuple hashing that takes place. An interesting test would be to be give server A a different address (secondary address should be fine, all you need to do is source packets from a different source address) and see if your scaling suddenly reappears. If it does, it's definitely down to the 5-tuple hashing happening within The Cloud(tm). Matt > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Machael, > > > > Let me setup another packet capture at each side to see if the initial > > packets are being modified at all. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Michael Brown <michael at supermathie.net > > > > wrote: > > > >> On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote: > >> > Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. > >> > > >> > Physical flow is as below. > >> > > >> > Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> > >> Cisco > >> > 3750x stack -> Server B > >> > > >> I blame the cloud. > >> > >> Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server B > >> (and vice-versa!). Does it get modified en route? > >> > >> M. > >> > >> -- > >> Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his > behaviour > >> Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine > >> michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, > >> | if necessary. - Brian > >> > >> > > > > From charles at thefnf.org Thu Jul 24 17:24:02 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:24:02 -0500 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> On 2014-07-24 12:04, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > So the EFF is pushing development of an open CPU router > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/building-open-wireless-router > https://openwireless.org/ > > It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software > (which works pretty well in my own experience). > > What will possibly be interesting in this forum is that it's explicitly > targeting having open guest wireless access (unlike the stuff being > pushed > by some ISPs, where you can roam but only to other customers of the > same > ISP). > > !DSPAM:53d13dc965333732154236! The Free Network Foundation (which I co founded and am CTO of) has been helping several groups in the USA do this for ~1 year now. EFF is simply rebranding/respinning community networking, but they are pretty new to the USA Free Networks party overall. They just have a bigger budget/brand recognition (though FreedomTower has become a pretty resilient brand based on the e-mails we get on a daily basis). Also I'm not sure of the level of support/hand holding/documentation etc EFF will provide for folks wanting to build a network off this setup (I'm guessing not much). Also most incumbent carriers prevent sharing (where FNF supported/assisted/collaborative/affiliated US based efforts back haul (over high capacity wifi or VPN over incumbent circuits) to wholesale colocation facilities POP and do things like monitor abuse@ contacts etc. (Ya know, actually responsibly run an ISP). I'd rather of seen them partner with FNF, (or actually much more preferable would be upstream wrt projects like QMP) and not spin YET ANOTHER FIRMWARE. I'm glad they picked CeroWRT though. From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 18:33:56 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAPN7yZLOmE0PG88LuY5+jF=uLUvHt=u6JpK25rS7drTmyyJGaQ@mail.gmail.com> *First round of packet captures* Here are the snippets from a packet capture. First is the SYN from Server A to Server B http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png Here is the SYN from Server B backhttp://i.imgur.com/RRSAl8G.png Second test from Server C to Server B: First is the SYN from Server C to Server B http://i.imgur.com/Jc2K6bT.pngand the SYN from Server B to Server C http://i.imgur.com/pbvx9jJ.png I guess I'm at a loss as to why in scenario 1 neither are sending window scaling at all. Is it because Server A isn't attempting or initializing? I'm in the process of setting up a VM that I can SPAN for a capture from the source of Server A. This will allow me to compare packets at each side. *Second round of packet captures* Now I just don't even know what is going on... Is this quantum physics now? Did the state just change by me looking at it? Here are some new screencaps. The only change that's been made was a SPAN port enabled on the Nexus7k sourced at Server A and destination for my new tcpdump capture server. Site 1 captures: 1 http://i.imgur.com/K5r7FaG.png 2 http://i.imgur.com/wfnfLyi.png Site 2 capture: 1 http://i.imgur.com/vpY2lnh.png 2 http://i.imgur.com/UyL3V6L.png Now they are both communicating a window size. Speed is still slow at 400-450KBps On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishy in >> >> the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp >> window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing >> this. Server A is able to properly TCP window scale for any local traffic. >> >> > Remember, the WAN cloud is just that, a cloud; > it's not likely to be a single link underneath it all; > so one bad link/bad port/bad device in the cloud > can affect just a sub-portion of the traffic, depending > on the 5-tuple hashing that takes place. > > An interesting test would be to be give server A > a different address (secondary address should be > fine, all you need to do is source packets from a > different source address) and see if your scaling > suddenly reappears. If it does, it's definitely down > to the 5-tuple hashing happening within The Cloud(tm). > > Matt > > >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Machael, >> > >> > Let me setup another packet capture at each side to see if the initial >> > packets are being modified at all. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Michael Brown < >> michael at supermathie.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote: >> >> > Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. >> >> > >> >> > Physical flow is as below. >> >> > >> >> > Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> >> >> Cisco >> >> > 3750x stack -> Server B >> >> > >> >> I blame the cloud. >> >> >> >> Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server B >> >> (and vice-versa!). Does it get modified en route? >> >> >> >> M. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his >> behaviour >> >> Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine >> >> michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, >> >> | if necessary. - Brian >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jul 24 19:08:52 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:08:52 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400." <CAPN7yZLOmE0PG88LuY5+jF=uLUvHt=u6JpK25rS7drTmyyJGaQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLOmE0PG88LuY5+jF=uLUvHt=u6JpK25rS7drTmyyJGaQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <23854.1406228932@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400, Zach Hill said: > First is the SYN from Server A to Server B http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png Was this captured with tcpdump on Server A on its way out, or on Server B on its way in, or at some other point using a span port? The answer matters if we're suspecting that something along the way is stomping the option.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140724/c07f86ef/attachment.pgp> From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 19:13:44 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:13:44 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <23854.1406228932@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLOmE0PG88LuY5+jF=uLUvHt=u6JpK25rS7drTmyyJGaQ@mail.gmail.com> <23854.1406228932@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <CAPN7yZ+o5Tj91jDx=nzWnjyiX8BK3zYYi2s7Nx29rfBaKBp3GA@mail.gmail.com> All are from SPAN ports at each end. So for the second round of packet captures Site 1 is from a SPAN port off the NIC of Server A. Site 2 is from a SPAN port off the NIC of the MPLS router. The first round of packet captures are only from the SPAN port off the MPLS router at Site 2. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400, Zach Hill said: > > > First is the SYN from Server A to Server B > http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png > > Was this captured with tcpdump on Server A on its way out, or on Server B > on its way in, or at some other point using a span port? The answer > matters > if we're suspecting that something along the way is stomping the option.... > From mpetach at netflight.com Thu Jul 24 19:18:13 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:18:13 -0700 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAPN7yZ+o5Tj91jDx=nzWnjyiX8BK3zYYi2s7Nx29rfBaKBp3GA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLOmE0PG88LuY5+jF=uLUvHt=u6JpK25rS7drTmyyJGaQ@mail.gmail.com> <23854.1406228932@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <CAPN7yZ+o5Tj91jDx=nzWnjyiX8BK3zYYi2s7Nx29rfBaKBp3GA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=riB2iMcoowThQMJFPpCVUp1E_KTNJq-uz3H8CDuWUYYw@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > All are from SPAN ports at each end. So for the second round of packet > captures Site 1 is from a SPAN port off the NIC of Server A. Site 2 is from > a SPAN port off the NIC of the MPLS router. > > The first round of packet captures are only from the SPAN port off the > MPLS router at Site 2. > I have to dash out of a few hours; but the short answer is the first round of packet captures are too far from the host to matter. second set are doing better, but still would be best to compare with tcpdumps from the device A itself, to see what it thinks it's sending out, vs what is seen upstream of it. Can you grab tcpdumps from server A itself? Thanks! Matt > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400, Zach Hill said: >> >> > First is the SYN from Server A to Server B >> http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png >> >> Was this captured with tcpdump on Server A on its way out, or on Server B >> on its way in, or at some other point using a span port? The answer >> matters >> if we're suspecting that something along the way is stomping the >> option.... >> > > From zach.reborn at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 19:19:46 2014 From: zach.reborn at gmail.com (Zach Hill) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:19:46 -0400 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=riB2iMcoowThQMJFPpCVUp1E_KTNJq-uz3H8CDuWUYYw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLRoOGZX5iQPXW2wJbRhgzLyDEimjZa38=_1TPyzfXOag@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=rfupFsbaZhA2QiukudKUcF6KjnG0umHXUj0ijQXCgsYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPN7yZLOmE0PG88LuY5+jF=uLUvHt=u6JpK25rS7drTmyyJGaQ@mail.gmail.com> <23854.1406228932@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <CAPN7yZ+o5Tj91jDx=nzWnjyiX8BK3zYYi2s7Nx29rfBaKBp3GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=riB2iMcoowThQMJFPpCVUp1E_KTNJq-uz3H8CDuWUYYw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAPN7yZKvJJX6ZNjaqA3F1QxLRTHSTRonxnQBCDV8dD6+6sOE0Q@mail.gmail.com> I don't have root access to that server but I should be able to get it then get some tcpdumps. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> All are from SPAN ports at each end. So for the second round of packet >> captures Site 1 is from a SPAN port off the NIC of Server A. Site 2 is from >> a SPAN port off the NIC of the MPLS router. >> >> The first round of packet captures are only from the SPAN port off the >> MPLS router at Site 2. >> > > I have to dash out of a few hours; but the short > answer is the first round of packet captures > are too far from the host to matter. > > second set are doing better, but still > would be best to compare with tcpdumps > from the device A itself, to see what it > thinks it's sending out, vs what is seen > upstream of it. Can you grab tcpdumps > from server A itself? > > Thanks! > > Matt > > >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400, Zach Hill said: >>> >>> > First is the SYN from Server A to Server B >>> http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png >>> >>> Was this captured with tcpdump on Server A on its way out, or on Server B >>> on its way in, or at some other point using a span port? The answer >>> matters >>> if we're suspecting that something along the way is stomping the >>> option.... >>> >> >> > From streiner at cluebyfour.org Thu Jul 24 17:42:25 2014 From: streiner at cluebyfour.org (Justin M. Streiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comcast IPv6 Milestone In-Reply-To: <CAOtTuaqj8pivdAFDZjPsjOW3K6zkhcAMT_3fLy77brkUpfumug@mail.gmail.com> References: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <CAOtTuaqj8pivdAFDZjPsjOW3K6zkhcAMT_3fLy77brkUpfumug@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407241339570.16901@whammy.cluebyfour.org> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Ian Bowers wrote: > Thank you for sharing! Would LOVE to see something like this from Verizon > about FioS. Agreed. I'd love to see some movement from Verizon, but I'm not hopeful. I'm not above using this announcement to needle them a bit (more than normal) the next time I ask them about their deployment plans. jms From jimb at jsbc.cc Thu Jul 24 20:16:42 2014 From: jimb at jsbc.cc (Jim Burwell) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:16:42 -0700 Subject: Comcast IPv6 Milestone In-Reply-To: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFF699B7.1A7BED%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <53D169AA.3040301@jsbc.cc> Congrats to you and your team John! I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress? - Jim On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote: > FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: > > http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network > > Thank you, > > John > ========================================= > John Jason Brzozowski > Comcast Cable > w) www.comcast6.net > e) john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com > ========================================= > > > > From asr at latency.net Thu Jul 24 20:46:30 2014 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:46:30 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <CFF6B295.DB0ED%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <20140723151153.GW10588@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0450b5faf8fc329221a6b4ffdf84a7b2.squirrel@66.201.44.180> <9D5095C2-FC7B-4C69-9186-34ADB06DF93D@latency.net> <F9E28386-84CC-4368-9426-341A885F754C@isprime.com> <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> <CFF6B295.DB0ED%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <1D1CE9BB-8A16-4220-B9FB-07802D343BEC@latency.net> Not to single out Jason, who has demonstrated his worth as one of the “good guys” in the community time after time, however I and somewhat of a skeptic: That Comcast is in a “pretty good spot” for capacity could be punctuated by any number of shifts in traffic, or new sites/services emerging as the next killer app. Where other access providers would increase capacity, Comcast would see money in its eyes, or cite such dated metrics as traffic ratios as a fairness metric, all the while playing the victim with the press. I don’t think I’m overly alarmist in these views; one need only look to the Tata situation (congested for multiple years), which was a textbook case of poor execution and damage control by all involved, as a recent example. Fool me once... On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr at latency.net> wrote: > > >> Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure >> networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and >> China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to >> scale up traffic. >> >> (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood¹s posts to >> broadbandreports, unfortunately I don¹t have a citation handy.) > > I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were > options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to > using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and > that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a > pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add > capacity as you¹d expect. > > Jason > From brunner at nic-naa.net Thu Jul 24 21:18:26 2014 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:18:26 -0700 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation Message-ID: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect, respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expressing their firm conviction as of Tuesday of this week that states have the constitutional authority to preempt municipalities in the domain of communications infrastructure. The letter is not a legal memo, so it expresses little of any use. Anyone wanting a copy can probably find it on either the FCC or the NCSL websites. Next is "by hand" of today from Jim Baller, retained by the Electrical Power Board of the City of Chatanooga, to the FCC. It is a 64pp legal memo constituting a "Petition for Removal of Barriers to Broadband Investment and Competition", that is, an argument that Section 706 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 takes precedence over Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-601 ("Section 601"). Here is the link: https://www.epb.net/downloads/legal/EPB-FCCPetition.pdf I expect the second correspondence will make more interesting reading. Eric From jra at baylink.com Thu Jul 24 22:10:24 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:10:24 -0400 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation In-Reply-To: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> References: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities. The question is can FCC preempt States? - jra On July 24, 2014 5:18:26 PM EDT, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote: >For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from >Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State >Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect, >respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC >Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expressing their firm conviction as of Tuesday > >of this week that states have the constitutional authority to preempt >municipalities in the domain of communications infrastructure. > >The letter is not a legal memo, so it expresses little of any use. >Anyone wanting a copy can probably find it on either the FCC or the >NCSL >websites. > >Next is "by hand" of today from Jim Baller, retained by the Electrical >Power Board of the City of Chatanooga, to the FCC. It is a 64pp legal >memo constituting a "Petition for Removal of Barriers to Broadband >Investment and Competition", that is, an argument that Section 706 of >the Telecommunication Act of 1996 takes precedence over Tenn. Code Ann. > >§ 7-52-601 ("Section 601"). > >Here is the link: >https://www.epb.net/downloads/legal/EPB-FCCPetition.pdf > >I expect the second correspondence will make more interesting reading. > >Eric -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From bill at herrin.us Thu Jul 24 22:28:02 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:28:02 -0400 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation In-Reply-To: <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> References: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGUKfHOcSM-VmPiLmRcQk9nc9i8yqhDPgcSCUKNzp0rWHQ@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities. Howdy, Actually, it usually stands on its head: states determine the scope of what local governments are -permitted- and required to do rather than what they're forbidden. Traditionally, sanctioning the local cable TV company has been one of the activities the states assign to individual localities while sanctioning the local telephone company has been kept up at the state corporation commission or public utilities commission. With the convergence of cable TV and telephone into Internet, it's anybody's guess which regulation goes where. Everybody wants the power. Nobody wants the responsibility. > The question is can FCC preempt States? Generally yes, as long as there is some aspect of the activity that moves it into the realm of interstate commerce. The FCC would have trouble preempting the states on a pure layer-1 fiber build but it is within the federal government's authority to preempt state regulation on general Internet access and any infrastructure not meticulously separated from the same. For example, the FCC preempts all state and local regulation of sub-meter satellite dishes on the grounds that satellite communications is fundamentally interstate in nature. They even preempt homeowners' association rules. There's also the question of whether the FCC already has the authority or if they'd need an act of congress to get it. On that question, I have no idea. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Jul 24 22:53:33 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:53:33 -0400 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation In-Reply-To: <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> References: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> Message-ID: <53D18E6D.8000702@meetinghouse.net> Well that's where it gets tricky. Section 253 of the Telecom Act says that nobody can write laws or regulations that preempt "any entity" from entering the telecom business. The Act gives the FCC the power to preempt such laws and regulations. But, the Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities are subdivisions of the states - and the states can do whatever they want in regulating their piece parts. So the FCC can't pre-empt the States in a lot of these cases. A good summary, with citations, is at http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20040324b.asp But......... the Supreme Court decision waffled on municipal utilities that are organized as independent authorities (i.e., separate legal entities). I don't believe that's been tested up the chain to the Supreme Court - and I'll note that most of the successful municipal telecom. projects have been by electric power boards. (But that success probably has more to do with those entities already being operating entities, with people, customers, billing, rights-of-way, and a need to string fiber for their own purposes.) I'm also not clear on where the Supreme Court leaves "home rule" states, where municipalities are more at arms length from. Any lawyers here who can comment? Some more discussion at http://www.baller.com/pdfs/jmt_barriers.pdf -- from Jim Baller, who is a very sharp attorney who does a lot of work for municipalities, on telecom. Miles Fidelman Jay Ashworth wrote: > For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities. The question is can FCC preempt States? > - jra > > > On July 24, 2014 5:18:26 PM EDT, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote: >> For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from >> Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State >> Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect, >> respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC >> Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expressing their firm conviction as of Tuesday >> >> of this week that states have the constitutional authority to preempt >> municipalities in the domain of communications infrastructure. >> >> The letter is not a legal memo, so it expresses little of any use. >> Anyone wanting a copy can probably find it on either the FCC or the >> NCSL >> websites. >> >> Next is "by hand" of today from Jim Baller, retained by the Electrical >> Power Board of the City of Chatanooga, to the FCC. It is a 64pp legal >> memo constituting a "Petition for Removal of Barriers to Broadband >> Investment and Competition", that is, an argument that Section 706 of >> the Telecommunication Act of 1996 takes precedence over Tenn. Code Ann. >> >> § 7-52-601 ("Section 601"). >> >> Here is the link: >> https://www.epb.net/downloads/legal/EPB-FCCPetition.pdf >> >> I expect the second correspondence will make more interesting reading. >> >> Eric -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From pete at altadena.net Thu Jul 24 23:21:12 2014 From: pete at altadena.net (Pete Carah) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:21:12 -0500 Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQtu9bc0TszU2-cDFs78J-kpY_EE9XPmsQiD9cd-+vz3g@mail.gmail.com> References: <D8D566A7-7741-4062-9A09-851EC6516647@delong.com> <22606585.6512.1405731248974.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAD6AjGQtu9bc0TszU2-cDFs78J-kpY_EE9XPmsQiD9cd-+vz3g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D194E8.70401@altadena.net> On 07/18/2014 10:43 PM, Ca By wrote: > On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> >>> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual >>> central control (one brain). >> Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes >> *wide* use of distributed processing. >> > Yes. > >>> Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it. >> All of them, then, I guess. >> > This is why most of us cannot stop cancer by willing the cells to stop > dividing. Also look at the immune "system"; there is no central control at all, and precious little central "advice" (pituitary and adrenal, and a few others). (yes, some disciplines related to meditation can affect the adrenal part of that somewhat...) Most of the immune system is cells at war with each other, and only kept in check with a major many-way balancing act (and you thought BGP was complicated!!). (and there are *plenty* of diseases that are expressions of imbalances of that war, or (mostly external) agents that induce what amounts to a DDOS.)) (even the itch from a mosquito bite, or poison ivy fall in that category; at least they are normally self-limiting.) (and some of these DDOS-like things can be fatal like type-1 diabetes used to be (and external insulin is just a crutch, not a cure) (lupus and MS also, both currently not particularly treatable; there are many others). To get back to the Verizon thing, they are not attacking netflix as such, the attacks are downstream on that path and the restrictions on level3 (among others) affect my getting to my own colo servers from fios, for example. (added 30msec and 5-10% packet loss to the path delay regularly at 8am every day and until last week this lasted till mid-evening (smokeping can be very enlightening)). Things got better late last week; hope it will last. Call it collateral damage, but it is Verizon doing it very much on purpose. And at least level3 finally called them on it; hope that ends up with some positive effect in the long run. -- Pete > From r.engehausen at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 00:28:18 2014 From: r.engehausen at gmail.com (Roy) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:28:18 -0700 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUKfHOcSM-VmPiLmRcQk9nc9i8yqhDPgcSCUKNzp0rWHQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> <CAP-guGUKfHOcSM-VmPiLmRcQk9nc9i8yqhDPgcSCUKNzp0rWHQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D1A4A2.8040902@gmail.com> The question posed is whether or not a state can control where a local governmental agencies can provide service. In the document below, the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (EPB) wants to expand its internet into a location that outside it's authorized area. On 7/24/2014 3:28 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >> For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities. > Howdy, > > Actually, it usually stands on its head: states determine the scope of > what local governments are -permitted- and required to do rather than > what they're forbidden. > > Traditionally, sanctioning the local cable TV company has been one of > the activities the states assign to individual localities while > sanctioning the local telephone company has been kept up at the state > corporation commission or public utilities commission. > > With the convergence of cable TV and telephone into Internet, it's > anybody's guess which regulation goes where. Everybody wants the > power. Nobody wants the responsibility. > > >> The question is can FCC preempt States? > Generally yes, as long as there is some aspect of the activity that > moves it into the realm of interstate commerce. The FCC would have > trouble preempting the states on a pure layer-1 fiber build but it is > within the federal government's authority to preempt state regulation > on general Internet access and any infrastructure not meticulously > separated from the same. > > For example, the FCC preempts all state and local regulation of > sub-meter satellite dishes on the grounds that satellite > communications is fundamentally interstate in nature. They even > preempt homeowners' association rules. > > There's also the question of whether the FCC already has the authority > or if they'd need an act of congress to get it. On that question, I > have no idea. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 25 01:17:59 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:17:59 -0400 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation In-Reply-To: <53D1A4A2.8040902@gmail.com> References: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> <CAP-guGUKfHOcSM-VmPiLmRcQk9nc9i8yqhDPgcSCUKNzp0rWHQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D1A4A2.8040902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVYNM_e9pzzjyH0niZ33meSn-3A6XvMdFVOxA5wHbVHrg@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Roy <r.engehausen at gmail.com> wrote: > The question posed is whether or not a state can control where a local > governmental agencies can provide service. Hi Roy, If the answer is anything other than, "of course they can," then I really want to read the judge's opinion. There are no shortage of examples of one locality providing services to another (it happens all the time with water systems) but I've not heard of such happening contrary to the wishes of the respective state government. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From LarrySheldon at cox.net Fri Jul 25 02:05:40 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:05:40 -0500 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice? In-Reply-To: <WGcs1o02f1cZc5601GcuHf> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> <WGcs1o02f1cZc5601GcuHf> Message-ID: <53D1BB74.8050709@cox.net> On 7/24/2014 4:10 AM, hayden wrote: > Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how > much licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP? > Also, Kansas.. Are you concerned that you’ll have to compete with > Google Fiber at some point? I used to correspond with a man out of Hays, Kansas who started a WISP using silos--last I heard he had gotten big enough that somebody bough him out. Sorry, age-related memory rot denies me his name--there are probably lurkers here who know of him. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From LarrySheldon at cox.net Fri Jul 25 02:07:44 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:07:44 -0500 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <WGxi1o01H1cZc5601Gxkuh> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <WGxi1o01H1cZc5601Gxkuh> Message-ID: <53D1BBF0.3010808@cox.net> On 7/24/2014 11:51 AM, Zach Hill wrote: > Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishing in > the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp > window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing > this. Server A is able to properly TCP window scale for any local traffic. > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Zach Hill <zach.reborn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Machael, >> >> Let me setup another packet capture at each side to see if the initial >> packets are being modified at all. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Michael Brown <michael at supermathie.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote: >>>> Hi Tony. No firewall in the way. >>>> >>>> Physical flow is as below. >>>> >>>> Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> >>> Cisco >>>> 3750x stack -> Server B >>>> >>> I blame the cloud. >>> >>> Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server B >>> (and vice-versa!). Does it get modified en route? >>> >>> M. >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour >>> Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine >>> michael at supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, >>> | if necessary. - Brian >>> >>> >> > -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From LarrySheldon at cox.net Fri Jul 25 02:13:47 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:13:47 -0500 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <WGxi1o01H1cZc5601Gxkuh> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <WGxi1o01H1cZc5601Gxkuh> Message-ID: <53D1BD5B.9090601@cox.net> [Sorry about the null reply.] On 7/24/2014 11:51 AM, Zach Hill wrote: > Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishing in > the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp > window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing > this. Server A is able to properly TCP window scale for any local traffic. I don't have enough data to make a detailed guess, but the broad brush is that on A, B, the router A talks to, the router B talks to, or a router in the path has got an ACL that knows A's IP or MAC address that has an unplanned affect. I'd turn off all ACL's on the path and check again and if clear, turn them back on one at a time. It is not going to be something you intended to do. One other possibility--traffic not routed by most direct, fire-wall-free route, but being detoured through a firewall. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From rdobbins at arbor.net Fri Jul 25 03:26:24 2014 From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:26:24 +0700 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <53D1BD5B.9090601@cox.net> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <WGxi1o01H1cZc5601Gxkuh> <53D1BD5B.9090601@cox.net> Message-ID: <6CA9D752-5436-47EF-9458-2B47020B15D3@arbor.net> On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> wrote: > One other possibility--traffic not routed by most direct, fire-wall-free route, but being detoured through a firewall. Or a transparent layer-2 firewall that's in-line somewhere in the path . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön From LarrySheldon at cox.net Fri Jul 25 04:31:44 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:31:44 -0500 Subject: TCP Window Scaling issue In-Reply-To: <WTTL1o00Y1cZc5601TTMlK> References: <CAPN7yZ+qDB0Qq4y2d0cPEXH-FhxeZfPsbLrM5vVAujoBMNoUZw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1407241725100.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAPN7yZ+XmpE2rVE9BAL=hWJcUhko7F03yYACtBujqCxN==35fA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136AC.1060100@supermathie.net> <CAPN7yZ+dTQ9bOq-J3UgLfgrsUBH=2mZTddJtdz=m9X1iHCbuvg@mail.gmail.com> <WGxi1o01H1cZc5601Gxkuh> <53D1BD5B.9090601@cox.net> <WTTL1o00Y1cZc5601TTMlK> Message-ID: <53D1DDB0.30007@cox.net> On 7/24/2014 10:26 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> > wrote: > >> One other possibility--traffic not routed by most direct, >> fire-wall-free route, but being detoured through a firewall. > > Or a transparent layer-2 firewall that's in-line somewhere in the > path . . . Are people still using "traffic shapers"? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From george.herbert at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 05:06:38 2014 From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:06:38 -0700 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> Message-ID: <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> Any idea how well CeroWRT stands up to nation-state level intrusion efforts? George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 24, 2014, at 10:24 AM, charles at thefnf.org wrote: > >> On 2014-07-24 12:04, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >> So the EFF is pushing development of an open CPU router >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/building-open-wireless-router >> https://openwireless.org/ >> It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software >> (which works pretty well in my own experience). >> What will possibly be interesting in this forum is that it's explicitly >> targeting having open guest wireless access (unlike the stuff being pushed >> by some ISPs, where you can roam but only to other customers of the same >> ISP). >> !DSPAM:53d13dc965333732154236! > > The Free Network Foundation (which I co founded and am CTO of) has been helping several groups in the USA do this for ~1 year now. EFF is simply rebranding/respinning community networking, but they are pretty new to the USA Free Networks party overall. They just have a bigger budget/brand recognition (though FreedomTower has become a pretty resilient brand based on the e-mails we get on a daily basis). Also I'm not sure of the level of support/hand holding/documentation etc EFF will provide for folks wanting to build a network off this setup (I'm guessing not much). Also most incumbent carriers prevent sharing (where FNF supported/assisted/collaborative/affiliated US based efforts back haul (over high capacity wifi or VPN over incumbent circuits) to wholesale colocation facilities POP and do things like monitor abuse@ contacts etc. (Ya know, actually responsibly run an ISP). > > I'd rather of seen them partner with FNF, (or actually much more preferable would be upstream wrt projects like QMP) and not spin YET ANOTHER FIRMWARE. > > I'm glad they picked CeroWRT though. > From r.engehausen at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 06:00:48 2014 From: r.engehausen at gmail.com (Roy) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:00:48 -0700 Subject: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a source of regulation In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVYNM_e9pzzjyH0niZ33meSn-3A6XvMdFVOxA5wHbVHrg@mail.gmail.com> References: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net> <fc09463d-1c9a-4f62-ba3a-606a8813252b@email.android.com> <CAP-guGUKfHOcSM-VmPiLmRcQk9nc9i8yqhDPgcSCUKNzp0rWHQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D1A4A2.8040902@gmail.com> <CAP-guGVYNM_e9pzzjyH0niZ33meSn-3A6XvMdFVOxA5wHbVHrg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D1F290.1020102@gmail.com> I agree 100%. If a municipality wants to provide service to its citizens and contracts it out, nothing prevents that. On 7/24/2014 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Roy <r.engehausen at gmail.com> wrote: >> The question posed is whether or not a state can control where a local >> governmental agencies can provide service. > Hi Roy, > > If the answer is anything other than, "of course they can," then I > really want to read the judge's opinion. There are no shortage of > examples of one locality providing services to another (it happens all > the time with water systems) but I've not heard of such happening > contrary to the wishes of the respective state government. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 25 11:54:08 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:54:08 -0500 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9c5d79297bd72845e5ba119de659cde1@thefnf.org> On 2014-07-25 00:06, George Herbert wrote: > Any idea how well CeroWRT stands up to nation-state level intrusion > efforts? Interesting question. It uses OpenWRT as a base. IPTables for the firewall. So that's a pretty big code base right there (though certainly a bit less than a comparable x86 Linux box). Most people use it with LUCI (web UI). So that adds more code. Is this attack from the WAN side? Or from a comped browser on the LAN side? Interesting discussion for a Friday! :) From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 25 12:29:25 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:29:25 -0500 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k =?UTF-8?Q?subs=3F=29=20?= =?UTF-8?Q?multihomed=20=28two=20ASN=29=20=2C=20dual=20stacked=2C=20wirele?= =?UTF-8?Q?ss=20ISP=20-=20i=20can=20haz=20advice=3F?= In-Reply-To: <CABmW_Pd-H8s7JxUpX9KMPg-3g4X9Yz2NTkps_ahATngmQ5UcWg@mail.gmail.com> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> <6B420B44-A6BF-40A6-8949-413350770DAD@gmail.com> <CABmW_Pd-H8s7JxUpX9KMPg-3g4X9Yz2NTkps_ahATngmQ5UcWg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <086661a1af8864a298485ccded5c51be@thefnf.org> On 2014-07-24 11:39, Josh Baird wrote: > FCC licensing?  No licenses as long as you operate in unlicensed > bands (ie, 900mhz/2.4ghz/5).  Yes. This is correct. Also no licensing needed for 24ghz. We are rolling out a dual uplink 24ghz AirFiber back bone in the next couple of weeks. The FNF has obtained a 3.65ghz license and that's come in very handy in some of the very noisy parts of our footprint. > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:10 AM, hayden <paul.basov at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how >> much licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP? Well. I'd recommend being incorporated. Which isn't licensing per se. I'd also recommend being bonded/insured. Just good general business practices. >> Also, Kansas.. Are you concerned that you’ll have to compete with >> Google Fiber at some point? >> Not really. We are serving areas that Google Fiber has decided to not service. From colton.conor at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 02:49:11 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:49:11 -0500 Subject: FTTH and DSLAM Access Vendors Message-ID: <CAMDdSzOb4Z0AwXvnhzBsR=1C8eqv2JNWsMJsoX48S+V_1RUbCA@mail.gmail.com> I am looking for comparisons between the following FTTH GPON and VDSL2 access platforms. Has anyone recently compared the capabilities of each of these platforms? Alcatel-Lucent 7360 ISAM Adtran Total Access 5000 Calix E7 Cisco ME4600 Huawei MA5600T Zhone MXK They all look great on paper, but there has to be some key differences other than price. Besides the vendors listed above, is there anyone else in this market? From blake at ispn.net Fri Jul 25 15:08:42 2014 From: blake at ispn.net (Blake Hudson) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:08:42 -0500 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice? In-Reply-To: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> Message-ID: <53D272FA.6090401@ispn.net> charles at thefnf.org wrote the following on 7/23/2014 11:58 AM: > > This is a greenfield network. We've got Ubiquiti gear for the > backbone. Running a mix of QMP routers with BMX6 as the IGP linked > over AirOS l2 bridge "pseudowires". We'll be homed to two AS > upstreams. Using pfSense as the WAN edge routers. > > From all my reading of the list, it seems like key things to do in > this scenario: > > 1) Have full flow telemetry at all points to help with (D)DOS mitigation. > 2) Do CGN in pools (so perhaps ~500 to 1k users behind each IP)? > 3) Provision a /56 of v6 space to each end user. I was thinking of > having the CPE with CeroWRT and be multi SSID with a /64 per. I'm > interested in folks thoughts on this? > 4) Upsell a public v4 address if someone requires it > 5) Of course implement bcp38 > > I'm mostly interested in technical feedback. Business model etc type > feedback is welcome as well, but not the primary purpose of this > message. :) Charles, it sounds like you've got a lot of the technical items on your radar. I highly recommend pfsense for a firewall (been using pfsense and m0n0wall for years), but do have some concerns about using it at scale for (several) thousands of users. Most of this relates to NAT/State tracking, some of it hardware related, some of it software. If possible, I would suggest you obtain a routable IP address per user and avoid the pitfalls of NAT (I know at some point this may become expensive). If you start with IPv6 from day 1 you are in a lot better place to encourage customers to upgrade to IPv6 capable gear. I would also suggest using stateless firewall rules and routing on your WAN devices. This should simplify the functions performed by these boxes to reduce the need to troubleshoot, apply updates, etc (resulting in better availability). I haven't used pfsense in an ISP WAN router capacity, and personally feel a router from Cisco, MikroTik, or Ubiquiti's EdgeOS devices, etc may be more appropriate in this role. If you've automatically discounted big name gear due to upfront costs, you might consider buying from a used equipment reseller (I can recommend a few, if needed). If you do need to use NAT, I feel like 500+ users sharing a single NAT IP will result in poor quality of service and more admin overhead. My gut feeling is that <50 may be more appropriate, depending on the quality of service you want to provide. This provides some headroom if one user makes many connections (p2p, virus infection, DoS attack) and also lessens the number of subs you need to look at in cases of abuse that are reported as an IP/port. Individual pfsense servers in a cluster may provide scalable CGN services. I'm not sure how you want to handle logging of all that data, but pfsense should allow you to define rules that allow stateless auditing (ip 1.2.3.4, ports 1000-2000 always NAT to sub A). The XML config file or possibly the shell is probably the easiest way to define such rulesets at scale. I didn't see it mentioned, where (and to whom) are you multihoming? Do you have a good working relationship with these folks (cell phone, email contacts that reach someone promptly)? Will you be considered a facilities based ISP (and subject to CALEA or other regulation)? --Blake From william.allen.simpson at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 16:17:30 2014 From: william.allen.simpson at gmail.com (William Allen Simpson) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:17:30 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> On 7/22/14 12:07 PM, Paul WALL wrote: > Provided without comment: > > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality > Thanks! This is nothing new for him. There's astroturf from him going back to '08 on NANOG. Remember when he was shilling for ITIF -- a "think tank" whose board was then co-chaired by conservative congress-critters and dominated by corporate governmental affairs (nee lobbyists)? From william.allen.simpson at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 17:03:10 2014 From: william.allen.simpson at gmail.com (William Allen Simpson) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:03:10 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D28DCE.6040103@gmail.com> On 7/21/14 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've > suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade > and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about > my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the > service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing > department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the > lawyers. > > And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help > folks in a truly remote location. > Woah! Catching up on this thread -- AFAICT from public sources you (Herrin) don't actually have municipal electric or gas, and doesn't look like water/sewer either.... What you have are regulated monopolies, subject to what's known as "regulatory capture". I've lived in places with municipal power and water -- and also under regulated monopolies. Municipal beats the pants off them! My gas company was bought by my electric company, so not even the hint of power competition there. My water/sewer company is "owned" by a big bankrupt city nearby, but operated as a separate entity with poor oversight -- so it's pretty much the worst possible case, indistinguishable from a regulated monopoly. Michigan used to have local cable boards, which were done away with in the same law that outlawed municipal broadband. Now we have to make complaints about Comcast at the state level. That's just dandy. :( From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jul 25 17:22:03 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:22:03 -0400 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:06:38 -0700." <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8784.1406308923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:06:38 -0700, George Herbert said: > Any idea how well CeroWRT stands up to nation-state level intrusion efforts? If they are as determined as FBI v Scarfo (the FBI pulled a black bag job to install a keystroke logger in a mobster's PC to capture his PGP passphrase), it's pretty much "game over". Isn't much the average router-class hardware can do to protect itself at that point. The second big challenge is that to the best of my knowledge, there exist no router-class hardware that includes a TPM chip, which means that you're not going to be able to implement a trusted boot environment. This means that we're stuck with trusting at least part of the boot process (though we can probably trust the first stage boot loader on a 3800, as that appears to be in an actual ROM, and we'll have to trust the bootstrap code on the flash, but if we use a signed kernel, everything after that can have some trust attached.) There's a number of attack surfaces left on CeroWRT, starting with the usual "find a 0-day and point it" - good targets there are the Linux network stack, the IPtables code, dropbear (which is nice, but almost certainly not audited as heavily as OpenSSH), and Luci. And yes, reflecting an attack off a browser behind the router is *very* much in scope - *most* of the pwned router attacks we see come from javascript or other executables pointed at the usually well-known router address from a PC behind the router. All the way to pulling a MITM on downloads from Dave Taht's repositories. The combination of DNSSEC, trusted crypto signatures on the dowload package, and OpeWireless's plans to use Tor to do the software download should make it a *lot* harder to attach via that route. And the rabbit hole goes *much* deeper - see Ken Thompson's "On Trusting Trust", which itself got the idea from Karger and Schell's analysis of Multics security. http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html Actually, Karger and Schell is a good read if you haven't done so - that *was* a nation-state funded intrusion effort. :) http://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/classic-multics-orig.pdf They were nice enough to go back 30 years later and tell us what we had learned in the meantime. tl;dr: Not much. https://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/classic-multics.pdf Hope that 15-minute analysis helps.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140725/614b0d2f/attachment.pgp> From mprokop at google.com Fri Jul 25 17:08:28 2014 From: mprokop at google.com (Matyas Prokop) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Nanog-observer] Re: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice? In-Reply-To: <53D272FA.6090401@ispn.net> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> <53D272FA.6090401@ispn.net> Message-ID: <CAKE_CqrWUxNNg_J0XiBdYu9hNTfLbHBPcbTYfvCp4BhArUtKAw@mail.gmail.com> Hey, I have started this kind of organization with my friends about 11 years ago (oh time flies) in Czech Republic in my small hometown. Nowadays it has around 3000 users. Each user has to pay small membership fee about 8EUR. Everyone shares 1GBit connectivity to the Internet. We have started with 4 people on old PCs running Linux (mainly Slackware) connected via 2.4GHz and backbone running on 2.4 as well with 64Kbit/s connectivity to the Internet. We went afterwards from 5GHz and 10GHz backbone, laser backbone and since last year or so ended up with fibres. In last few years we are forcing users to move towards 5GHz as 2.4GHz is very noisy in our area and therefore very hard to manage. In part of the town with apartments we have connected the whole buildings with fibre. We have seen our organization moving from fully volunteered workforce towards volunteering organization with two full-timers to give support to end users as it was unsustainable to support so many end users by volunteers. Since we have started as high school students and nowadays half of us has own families or live/work out of the town it reminds me another thing. Always share your knowledge with other volunteers and look for other young and smart people as one day you won't be able to do it (for any reason:) Our experience is that it is very hard to find other young people to continue on our work. Our 'business model' was always volunteering organization which supports other non profit or non gov organizations. We also supported OSS projects and help to build hockey pitch in our town et cetera et cetera:) My last recommendation would be to just have fun. We have seen many points in our history where we didn't have time or energy to do something but it has all paid off - it helps us with our careers and most importantly to other people. I'm sorry if you were expecting any technical advice;) Good luck and if you have any other (even technical) questions please let know:) Matyas On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote: > > charles at thefnf.org wrote the following on 7/23/2014 11:58 AM: > > >> This is a greenfield network. We've got Ubiquiti gear for the backbone. >> Running a mix of QMP routers with BMX6 as the IGP linked over AirOS l2 >> bridge "pseudowires". We'll be homed to two AS upstreams. Using pfSense as >> the WAN edge routers. >> >> From all my reading of the list, it seems like key things to do in this >> scenario: >> >> 1) Have full flow telemetry at all points to help with (D)DOS mitigation. >> 2) Do CGN in pools (so perhaps ~500 to 1k users behind each IP)? >> 3) Provision a /56 of v6 space to each end user. I was thinking of having >> the CPE with CeroWRT and be multi SSID with a /64 per. I'm interested in >> folks thoughts on this? >> 4) Upsell a public v4 address if someone requires it >> 5) Of course implement bcp38 >> >> I'm mostly interested in technical feedback. Business model etc type >> feedback is welcome as well, but not the primary purpose of this message. :) >> > > Charles, it sounds like you've got a lot of the technical items on your > radar. > > I highly recommend pfsense for a firewall (been using pfsense and m0n0wall > for years), but do have some concerns about using it at scale for (several) > thousands of users. Most of this relates to NAT/State tracking, some of it > hardware related, some of it software. If possible, I would suggest you > obtain a routable IP address per user and avoid the pitfalls of NAT (I know > at some point this may become expensive). If you start with IPv6 from day 1 > you are in a lot better place to encourage customers to upgrade to IPv6 > capable gear. I would also suggest using stateless firewall rules and > routing on your WAN devices. This should simplify the functions performed > by these boxes to reduce the need to troubleshoot, apply updates, etc > (resulting in better availability). I haven't used pfsense in an ISP WAN > router capacity, and personally feel a router from Cisco, MikroTik, or > Ubiquiti's EdgeOS devices, etc may be more appropriate in this role. If > you've automatically discounted big name gear due to upfront costs, you > might consider buying from a used equipment reseller (I can recommend a > few, if needed). > > If you do need to use NAT, I feel like 500+ users sharing a single NAT IP > will result in poor quality of service and more admin overhead. My gut > feeling is that <50 may be more appropriate, depending on the quality of > service you want to provide. This provides some headroom if one user makes > many connections (p2p, virus infection, DoS attack) and also lessens the > number of subs you need to look at in cases of abuse that are reported as > an IP/port. Individual pfsense servers in a cluster may provide scalable > CGN services. I'm not sure how you want to handle logging of all that data, > but pfsense should allow you to define rules that allow stateless auditing > (ip 1.2.3.4, ports 1000-2000 always NAT to sub A). The XML config file or > possibly the shell is probably the easiest way to define such rulesets at > scale. > > I didn't see it mentioned, where (and to whom) are you multihoming? Do you > have a good working relationship with these folks (cell phone, email > contacts that reach someone promptly)? Will you be considered a facilities > based ISP (and subject to CALEA or other regulation)? > > --Blake > > -- > > From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 25 18:11:29 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:11:29 -0500 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: <8784.1406308923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> <8784.1406308923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <2da267a008a7572030532698d886d9dc@thefnf.org> On 2014-07-25 12:22, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:06:38 -0700, George Herbert said: > >> Any idea how well CeroWRT stands up to nation-state level intrusion >> efforts? > > If they are as determined as FBI v Scarfo (the FBI pulled a black bag > job > to install a keystroke logger in a mobster's PC to capture his PGP > passphrase), > it's pretty much "game over". Isn't much the average router-class > hardware > can do to protect itself at that point. Of course. Physical access is root access. We know this. > > The second big challenge is that to the best of my knowledge, there > exist > no router-class hardware that includes a TPM chip, OpenWRT x86? Run it on a decently specced laptop a couple gens old (like a Dell Latitude 6500 or so). That's got TPM, plenty of ram. Of course you can run on a server board (Dell Poweredge or something). I prefer pfsense myself for full blown kit. which means that you're > not going to be able to implement a trusted boot environment. This > means that > we're stuck with trusting at least part of the boot process (though we > can > probably trust the first stage boot loader on a 3800, as that appears > to be > in an actual ROM, and we'll have to trust the bootstrap code on the > flash, > but if we use a signed kernel, everything after that can have some > trust > attached.) Right. > > There's a number of attack surfaces left on CeroWRT, starting with the > usual > "find a 0-day and point it" - good targets there are the Linux network > stack, > the IPtables code, dropbear (which is nice, but almost certainly not > audited > as heavily as OpenSSH), and Luci. And yes, reflecting an attack off a > browser > behind the router is *very* much in scope - *most* of the pwned router > attacks > we see come from javascript or other executables pointed at the usually > well-known router address from a PC behind the router. > Agree 100% > All the way to pulling a MITM on downloads from Dave Taht's > repositories. The > combination of DNSSEC, trusted crypto signatures on the dowload > package, and > OpeWireless's plans to use Tor to do the software download should make > it a > *lot* harder to attach via that route. > Oooo. I'll have to clone that methodology for the FNF downloads. From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 25 18:31:29 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:31:29 -0500 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k =?UTF-8?Q?subs=3F=29=20?= =?UTF-8?Q?multihomed=20=28two=20ASN=29=20=2C=20dual=20stacked=2C=20wirele?= =?UTF-8?Q?ss=20ISP=20-=20i=20can=20haz=20advice=3F?= In-Reply-To: <53D272FA.6090401@ispn.net> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> <53D272FA.6090401@ispn.net> Message-ID: <fca52eab9407fdb2d42fcc0ccc06eacb@thefnf.org> > > I highly recommend pfsense for a firewall (been using pfsense and > m0n0wall for years), but do have some concerns about using it at scale > for (several) thousands of users. So far it's gone fairly well for the existing subscriber base. The current service footprint is ~1k homes. I think it's running on a Dell Poweredge ~29xxish , don't know for sure. Most of this relates to NAT/State > tracking, some of it hardware related, some of it software. Right. If > possible, I would suggest you obtain a routable IP address per user > and avoid the pitfalls of NAT (I know at some point this may become > expensive). Exactly. If you start with IPv6 from day 1 you are in a lot better > place to encourage customers to upgrade to IPv6 capable gear. Yes. We are doing v6 to every end user CPE. Absolutely. It will be there, be turned on and we hope to send all netflix/facebook/google etc traffic over v6. The v4 will be CGN. (We think we can only get a /24 reasonably). @Comcast v6 team (and really anyone who has a large dualstack network (*waves* at Owen), So you guys have v6 turned up. You passed 1tb of traffic. Didn't comcast also write some floss code for CGN? So presumably you'll have to start doing CGN soon. Thoughts on long tail v4 only internet being seriously degraded by large scale CGN? (Maybe that's a new thread?) If the major properties are v6, shouldn't that be enough to keep the support costs down? (My friends in the MMORPG "cloud gaming" space tell me that my approach could wreak havoc with many game engines). Thoughts on what happens when you've got v6 at your door and v4 at your CO? Who is running a network like this today (I imagine most small ISPs will be in that boat soon)? (And also, what's up with people complaining about ARIN fees?). The air fiber radios FNF is installing in KC cost 5k capex. So enough already about a ONE TIME 1k fee and get your v6 space! (I agree with the posters who said if you can't afford the arin fee, GET OUT OF BUSINESS). I would > also suggest using stateless firewall rules and routing on your WAN > devices. That does seem to be the common wisdom. I'm actually not 100% sure what we've got in line. It's OpenWRT based all around, so I'm sure IPTABLES (and maybe even some ebtables). This should simplify the functions performed by these boxes > to reduce the need to troubleshoot, apply updates, etc (resulting in > better availability). Yeah. Of course. I haven't used pfsense in an ISP WAN router > capacity, and personally feel a router from Cisco, MikroTik, or > Ubiquiti's EdgeOS devices, etc may be more appropriate in this role. I've got pretty much every Cisco router/switch in our lab, and an EdgeRouter. What mikrotik should I evaluate? Our lab : https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/FNF_Lab > If you've automatically discounted big name gear due to upfront costs, > you might consider buying from a used equipment reseller (I can > recommend a few, if needed). No. It's mostly for the customization/scripting etc. "SDN" and all that jazz. ;) > > If you do need to use NAT, I feel like 500+ users sharing a single NAT > IP will result in poor quality of service and more admin overhead. Quite possibly. However if it's just for long tail v4 only sites, I wonder how much it matters? My > gut feeling is that <50 may be more appropriate, depending on the > quality of service you want to provide. This provides some headroom if > one user makes many connections (p2p, virus infection, DoS attack) and > also lessens the number of subs you need to look at in cases of abuse > that are reported as an IP/port. Individual pfsense servers in a > cluster may provide scalable CGN services. I'm not sure how you want > to handle logging of all that data, but pfsense should allow you to > define rules that allow stateless auditing (ip 1.2.3.4, ports > 1000-2000 always NAT to sub A). The XML config file or possibly the > shell is probably the easiest way to define such rulesets at scale. > Right right. I'm very familiar with the XML config and CLI. We've gotten to know pfSense well in our AutoTunnel (RADIUS) work. We patched (and released back to upstream) hostapd and other bits to actually correctly implement the RFC :D So we've got a solution that is multi gateway. So based on the login creds you use, you get dropped into an appropriate vlan / BMX tunnel and get routed out the appropriate gateway. > I didn't see it mentioned, where (and to whom) are you multihoming? Kansas City Kansas. Joesdatacenter.com is the current tower PoP. We can get transit from him, of course peer with KCIX , and we'll probably get transit from another local ISP in town (CTC). Of course level3/att/vz et al are all in town/on net and just a very short fiber hop away from Joes if we want to go that route. Do > you have a good working relationship with these folks (cell phone, > email contacts that reach someone promptly)? Yes. Very much so. Will you be considered a > facilities based ISP (and subject to CALEA or other regulation)? > I'm not sure. CALEA compliance is a very big deal for us. Especially in regards to making an open doc about being compliant and any necessary patches to the FLOSS supply chain for compliance. As far as documentation goes, we're working on a FLOSS book: https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Building_a_local_network_in_your_neighborhood which will help folks build low cost community based access networks. We are all about building a (business/technical/operational) model which can be readily and easily replicated by existing community based organizations and not need to wait on muni networks (with all of the complexity/risk/unknown unknowns etc that implies). The current bit about cities having to ASK the federal govt (mother may I build an ISP, even though the bullys have said I can't)? Are you kidding me? What happened to techies banding together, getting some management "bridge" types to organize the community and put up a network! From joly at punkcast.com Fri Jul 25 18:39:30 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:39:30 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> Personally, I don't get it. To mock the Brett Glass Google obsession (PK.EFF, Susan Crawford etc) - as I do - while casting aspersions on Bennett and the ITIF, is hypocrisy. Astroturfing - defined as paid spoofing of grass roots support for a position - definitely exists, and is heavily practiced by Telecom incumbents, but Bennett isn't it. There is no way he is "grass roots". He is a pundit, an advocate, arguably a shill, but astroturf, no. j On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM, William Allen Simpson < william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/22/14 12:07 PM, Paul WALL wrote: > >> Provided without comment: >> >> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality >> >> Thanks! This is nothing new for him. There's astroturf from > him going back to '08 on NANOG. > > Remember when he was shilling for ITIF -- a "think tank" whose > board was then co-chaired by conservative congress-critters and > dominated by corporate governmental affairs (nee lobbyists)? > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 25 19:02:13 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:02:13 -0400 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <53D28DCE.6040103@gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <16884438.6618.1405952432741.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAP-guGWjUeX8oVaRFbGY2ycNZy7kHyMHtX=YHBznbM3pT-pDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvB4t=8k0tQGvnq5ZoKCicwNpER_aTqnBtqB0cck8cSTW7kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWeOPBohU=vWrxdC0eePG6CY9LW9hpFoeqQcHddthGwpA@mail.gmail.com> <53D28DCE.6040103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWLN1=eRC3jQH7KSgePVQ8A5Tt-J-v6_wY9b2bun29TMg@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/21/14 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote: >>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on >>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >> >> Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've >> suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade >> and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about >> my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the >> service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing >> department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the >> lawyers. >> >> And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help >> folks in a truly remote location. >> > Woah! Catching up on this thread -- AFAICT from public sources > you (Herrin) don't actually have municipal electric or gas, and > doesn't look like water/sewer either.... > > What you have are regulated monopolies, subject to what's known as > "regulatory capture". Right on power and gas, wrong on water and sewer. Until this year, water and sewer was owned and operated by the neighboring city of Falls Church (I'm in Fairfax county. Counties and cities are separate in Virginia. A place is either in a city or in a county but not both.), providing water directly and reselling Fairfax county sewer. After the worst sewer backflow last decade (which hit everybody on the street), the county stepped up a "blame the victim" process. See, they oversubscribed the sanitary sewer allowing new construction hookups and selling additional capacity upstream to the city as if all nearby county houses were following modern standards. But, most of the local neighborhoods were built in the 1950's when it was standard and then-lawful practice to hook areaway (basement stair) drains to the sanitary sewer. This results in modest stormwater intrusion which Fairfax didn't account for. Their solution? We'll install the cheapest possible backflow valve at our cost, but you have to agree that should it ever gunk up and fail that's your problem and oh by the way we think you're at fault anyway because you have an areaway drain and reconnecting it to the stormwater system so it doesn't back up when the valve closes is your problem. I have pictures where brownish water has pushed its way up to the top of the basement washbasins, a good three feet off the floor. Bastards. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 25 20:45:01 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (charles at thefnf.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:45:01 -0500 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> Message-ID: <6c2e7e57e40a47ce922c01d71c60271c@thefnf.org> On 2014-07-22 18:20, Nolan Rollo wrote: > I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good home for a > Network Admin... access to physical, reliable upstream routes? good > selection of local taverns? What, in your opinion, makes a good > location for a Network Admin and where in the US would you find that? Hmmmm. That's a great question. Well does the network admin mostly travel to job sites? Or work remotely? If either/both are true, I'd suggest the DFW area. It's a major hub in both internet and travel respects. (I fly American Airlines exclusively, I live in Austin. Most flights are AUS-DFW-$FINALHOP). > > Also, I'd like to introduce myself [[ o/ ]] I've been watching the > list for a while now and have found it helpful with picking up some > "best practices", getting use-case scenarios you might not see in text > books. Is that code for "all you crazies doing crazy things for crazier bosses?" :) Welcome to the list sir! I attended Michigan Tech for Computer Networking and System > Administration and have been bouncing around for a couple of years > trying to find my calling. Yeah. That happens. I've been working a lot with VoIP and > that's been my interest ever since middle school. I've been mainly > playing with stub networks for most of my life but have recently > started working with larger routed networks, leading me to subscribe > to the NANOG list. Excellent! My latest endeavor was acquiring and ASN and a /24 > from ARIN and multihoming a very small MSP. Oooo. How did that go for you? What upstreams did you connect with? How painful was it? How much convincing did it take to get management to go along? What are the post implementation improvements? etc etc. I've been fortunate enough > to have really sharp mentors to help answer any questions I've had > along the way. I know there must be quite a few people like myself > that are lurking on the list and I just wanted to thank you guys for > answering other questions and providing input on > topics that have come through the list. > Yes. Many lurkers, many off list replies to most threads. Did you get any awesome off list replies? Summarize them back to the list? From bill at herrin.us Fri Jul 25 21:31:02 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:31:02 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nolan Rollo <nrollo at kw-corp.com> wrote: > I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good > home for a Network Admin... access to physical, reliable > upstream routes? good selection of local taverns? What, in > your opinion, makes a good location for a Network Admin > and where in the US would you find that? Hi Nolan, Back in the days of lore when the Internet ran over telephone lines instead of the other way around, the most substantial long haul communications hub in the country was Northern Virginia's Dulles Corridor. More than any other area, leased lines to and from anywhere transited northern VA because that's how the long distance telephone infrastructure was built. Move the call here, switch it, move it back out. This made it the cheapest place to hub your Internet backbone. Indeed, the first large Internet Exchange Point, MAE-East was originally a FDDI ring at 8100 Boone Blvd, Vienna VA in the area known as Tysons Corner. The Internet is much more distributed now, but the area still retains its legacy. Lots of Internet companies continue to house major facilities here and operations such as ARIN are headquartered here. More, many of the folks you've come to know on NANOG and in other forums live and work here. Bonuses: With the possible exception of NYC, nowhere in the U.S. has more or finer quality cultural institutions than DC and its suburbs (Northern Virginia). The Smithsonian's extensive network of museums, the Kennedy Center, and so on. Federal money tends not to wander far, so you'll never want for paying work in Northern Virginia. Nowhere I've traveled has a broader selection of good restaurants. Most places have a local food with a bunch of good restaurants for that food, but we have all the foods and at least a few restaurants for each which are exceptional. Casual conversation is heavy on politics and matters of import Less than wonderful: Not the worst traffic in the nation but not far from it High rent, high cost of living Political conversation is inescapable > good selection of local taverns? Octoberfest at the German embassy annex at Dulles Airport. ;) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Jul 25 21:52:05 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:52:05 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D2D185.4020008@meetinghouse.net> William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nolan Rollo <nrollo at kw-corp.com> wrote: >> I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good >> home for a Network Admin... access to physical, reliable >> upstream routes? good selection of local taverns? What, in >> your opinion, makes a good location for a Network Admin >> and where in the US would you find that? > Hi Nolan, > > Back in the days of lore when the Internet ran over telephone lines > instead of the other way around, the most substantial long haul > communications hub in the country was Northern Virginia's Dulles > Corridor. More than any other area, leased lines to and from anywhere > transited northern VA because that's how the long distance telephone > infrastructure was built. Move the call here, switch it, move it back > out. This made it the cheapest place to hub your Internet backbone. > Indeed, the first large Internet Exchange Point, MAE-East was > originally a FDDI ring at 8100 Boone Blvd, Vienna VA in the area known > as Tysons Corner. And here I thought all the submarine cables terminated in Moristown, NJ and Florida. Still DC is a nice place to live. Miles Fidelmn -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From cidr-report at potaroo.net Fri Jul 25 22:00:00 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:00:00 GMT Subject: The Cidr Report Message-ID: <201407252200.s6PM00j3098001@wattle.apnic.net> This report has been generated at Fri Jul 25 21:14:20 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 18-07-14 509180 285813 19-07-14 508678 286441 20-07-14 509183 286794 21-07-14 509681 286687 22-07-14 509183 286848 23-07-14 509579 286970 24-07-14 509660 286199 25-07-14 508935 285808 AS Summary 47741 Number of ASes in routing system 19374 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 3790 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS28573: NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 120495616 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 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'). --- 25Jul14 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 508825 285863 222962 43.8% All ASes AS28573 3790 236 3554 93.8% NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR AS6389 2948 84 2864 97.2% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.,US AS17974 2803 191 2612 93.2% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID AS22773 2723 556 2167 79.6% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US AS7029 2536 488 2048 80.8% WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US AS4766 2967 934 2033 68.5% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR AS18881 2062 45 2017 97.8% Global Village Telecom,BR AS7545 2351 681 1670 71.0% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited,AU AS18566 2046 565 1481 72.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation,US AS7303 1774 435 1339 75.5% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR AS10620 2921 1609 1312 44.9% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO AS4755 1864 590 1274 68.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN AS4323 1642 426 1216 74.1% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US AS6983 1391 314 1077 77.4% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US AS22561 1299 240 1059 81.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc.,US AS7552 1250 260 990 79.2% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN AS6147 1095 147 948 86.6% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE AS9829 1656 761 895 54.0% BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN AS7738 977 169 808 82.7% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR AS24560 1151 346 805 69.9% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services,IN AS4808 1212 417 795 65.6% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN AS4788 1023 261 762 74.5% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet Service Provider,MY AS18101 943 186 757 80.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN Reliance Communications Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN AS8151 1447 694 753 52.0% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX AS11492 1246 508 738 59.2% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.,US AS26615 859 136 723 84.2% Tim Celular S.A.,BR AS701 1439 727 712 49.5% UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US AS855 770 62 708 91.9% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Inc.,CA AS27738 770 62 708 91.9% Ecuadortelecom S.A.,EC AS34984 1720 1025 695 40.4% TELLCOM-AS TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S.,TR Total 52675 13155 39520 75.0% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 23.226.240.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 23.226.240.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 23.226.248.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 24.231.96.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 27.100.7.0/24 AS56096 41.73.1.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.2.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.10.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.11.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.12.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.13.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.14.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.73.15.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.76.48.0/21 AS36969 MTL-AS,MW 41.78.120.0/23 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 - INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE CORPORATION,US 41.78.180.0/23 AS37265 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.236.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.237.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.238.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.78.239.0/24 AS37290 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.189.96.0/20 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.189.128.0/24 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.1.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.2.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.3.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.4.0/22 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.4.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.5.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.8.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.10.0/23 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.12.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.13.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.14.0/24 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.16.0/20 AS37076 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.190.72.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.73.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.74.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.190.75.0/24 AS37451 CongoTelecom,CG 41.191.108.0/22 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.108.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.109.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.110.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.191.111.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.197.0.0/16 AS36934 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 41.223.208.0/22 AS37000 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV,NL 62.193.160.0/19 AS24801 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.193.160.0/20 AS24801 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 62.193.176.0/20 AS24801 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.16.0/23 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.20.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.21.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.22.0/24 AS19535 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.25.27.0/24 AS7046 RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 64.111.160.0/20 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.160.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.161.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.162.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.167.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.169.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.170.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.171.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.172.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.173.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.174.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 64.111.175.0/24 AS40551 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 65.75.216.0/23 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.75.217.0/24 AS10494 AAI - Accurate Automation, Inc.,US 65.111.1.0/24 AS32258 SDNGLOBAL - SDN Global,US 66.6.176.0/20 AS13223 BBTECNETWORKS-HK RM18, 9/F., Kwan Yick Building Phase 1, 430-440A Des Voeux Rd. West.,HK 66.55.96.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.98.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.99.0/24 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.100.0/22 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.102.0/23 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.55.104.0/21 AS17203 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 66.180.64.0/21 AS32558 ZEUTER - Zeuter Development Corporation,CA 66.187.240.0/20 AS14552 ACS-SOUTHEASTDATACENTER - Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,US 66.205.224.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 66.251.128.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.133.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.134.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.136.0/21 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.140.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.141.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.251.142.0/24 AS33227 BLUEBRIDGE-NETWORKS - Blue Bridge Networks,US 66.254.160.0/19 AS22552 ESITED - eSited Solutions,US 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A.,IT 72.19.0.0/19 AS16526 BIRCH-TELECOM - Birch Telecom, Inc.,US 74.112.100.0/22 AS16764 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.113.200.0/23 AS46939 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/22 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.52.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.53.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/23 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.54.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.114.55.0/24 AS40818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.115.124.0/23 AS46540 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.118.132.0/22 AS5117 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.212.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.120.214.0/23 AS32326 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 74.121.24.0/22 AS36263 FORONA - Forona Technologies, Inc.,US 77.243.80.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.81.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.88.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.91.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.94.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 77.243.95.0/24 AS42597 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 80.78.133.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/23 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.134.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.78.135.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 80.250.32.0/22 AS37106 ODUA-AS,NG 85.202.160.0/20 AS44404 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.24.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.26.0/23 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.31.28.0/22 AS41455 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 89.207.8.0/21 AS3292 TDC TDC A/S,DK 91.193.60.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.195.66.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 91.197.36.0/22 AS43359 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.199.90.0/24 AS44330 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.209.115.0/24 AS31103 KEYWEB-AS Keyweb AG,DE 91.214.65.0/24 AS30822 MAGEAL-AS Private Enterprise Mageal,LT 91.228.160.0/24 AS56815 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 91.239.157.0/24 AS24958 TBSH The Bunker Secure Hosting Limited,GB 93.190.10.0/24 AS47254 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 95.215.140.0/22 AS48949 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 102.2.88.0/22 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.6.108.0/22 AS37986 TULIP Tulip Telecom Ltd.,IN 103.6.228.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.108.0/22 AS4725 ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.,JP 103.9.140.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.141.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.142.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.9.143.0/24 AS38456 PACTEL-AS-AP Pacific Teleports. ,AU 103.17.108.0/23 AS56301 MN-NDC-MN National Data Center building,MN 103.18.76.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.18.92.0/22 AS13269 103.18.92.0/24 AS13269 103.18.94.0/24 AS13269 103.18.248.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.19.0.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 103.20.100.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.20.101.0/24 AS45334 AIRCEL-AS-AP Dishnet Wireless Limited,IN 103.25.120.0/22 AS13280 103.248.88.0/22 AS23818 JETINTERNET JETINTERNET Corporation,JP 103.248.220.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP 103.250.0.0/22 AS17676 GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.,JP 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN 124.158.28.0/22 AS45857 142.147.62.0/24 AS3958 AIRCANADA - Air Canada,CA 162.218.168.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 162.218.175.0/24 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 163.47.23.0/24 AS2907 SINET-AS Research Organization of Information and Systems, National Institute of Informatics,JP 166.93.0.0/16 AS23537 CRITIGEN - Micro Source, Inc.,US 172.85.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.85.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.86.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.87.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.88.0.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS,CI 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group),CN 176.111.168.0/22 AS50586 MACROSOLUTIONS MacroSolution SRL,RO 182.237.25.0/24 AS10201 DWL-AS-IN Dishnet Wireless Limited. Broadband Wireless,IN 185.28.180.0/22 AS18097 DCN D.C.N. Corporation,JP 185.65.28.0/22 AS20175 190.3.160.0/21 AS27975 SYNAPSIS COLOMBIA SAS,CO 190.124.252.0/22 AS7303 Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR 192.9.0.0/16 AS11479 BRM-SUN-AS - Sun Microsystems, Inc,US 192.25.10.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.11.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.13.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.25.14.0/24 AS5714 HPES - Hewlett-Packard Company,US 192.34.152.0/21 AS10835 VISIONARY - Visionary Communications, Inc.,US 192.75.23.0/24 AS2579 AS2579 - Alcatel-Lucent,US 192.75.239.0/24 AS23498 CDSI - COGECODATA,CA 192.84.24.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 192.101.70.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.71.0/24 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.101.72.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.124.252.0/22 AS680 DFN Verein zur Foerderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.,DE 192.131.233.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 192.149.81.0/24 AS14454 PERIMETER-ESECURITY - Perimeter eSecurity,US 192.154.32.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.154.64.0/19 AS81 NCREN - MCNC,US 192.166.32.0/20 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 192.245.195.0/24 AS7381 SUNGARDRS - SunGard Availability Services LP,US 192.252.252.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc.,US 193.9.59.0/24 AS1257 TELE2,SE 193.16.106.0/24 AS31539 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.16.145.0/24 AS31392 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.86.0/24 AS24751 MULTIFI-AS Jakobstadsnejdens Telefon Ab,FI 193.22.224.0/20 AS3322 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 193.22.238.0/23 AS62383 LDS-AS Lambrechts Data Services VOF,BE 193.26.213.0/24 AS31641 BYTEL-AS Bytel Ltd,GB 193.28.14.0/24 AS34309 LINK11 Link11 GmbH,DE 193.33.6.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.33.252.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.46.200.0/24 AS34243 WEBAGE Web Age Ltd,GB 193.93.6.0/23 AS35559 SOMEADDRESS Someaddress Networks Ltd,GB 193.111.229.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.149.2.0/23 AS15919 INTERHOST Servicios de Hosting en Internet S.A.,ES 193.160.16.0/22 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.161.157.0/24 AS2116 ASN-CATCHCOM Broadnet AS,NO 193.164.152.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.178.196.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 193.186.193.0/24 AS158 ERI-AS - Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.,US 193.188.252.0/24 AS8697 JTC-AS8697 Jordan Telecommunications Company,JO 193.200.244.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.201.244.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.245.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.201.246.0/24 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 193.202.8.0/21 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.202.9.0/24 AS6824 HERMES-NETWORK Hermes Telecom International Ltd,GB 193.223.103.0/24 AS3248 SIL-AT Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH,AT 193.227.109.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.227.236.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 193.243.166.0/24 AS44093 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.0.116.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.0.117.0/24 AS21437 AVITI-AS Aviti ltd.,UA 194.6.252.0/24 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 194.9.8.0/23 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.9.8.0/24 AS2863 SPRITELINK Centor AB,SE 194.33.11.0/24 AS8943 JUMP Jump Networks Ltd.,GB 194.39.78.0/23 AS702 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 194.49.17.0/24 AS13135 CREW-AS Wieske's Crew GmbH,DE 194.60.88.0/21 AS5089 NTL Virgin Media Limited,GB 194.63.152.0/22 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.79.36.0/22 AS3257 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA,DE 194.88.6.0/24 AS35093 RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO 194.88.226.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.99.67.0/24 AS9083 CARPENET carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH,DE 194.126.152.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 194.126.219.0/24 AS34545 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.126.233.0/24 AS31235 SKIWEBCENTER-AS SKIWEBCENTER SARL,FR 194.126.251.0/24 AS50818 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 194.146.35.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.146.36.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS Orange S.A.,FR 194.150.214.0/23 AS30880 SPACEDUMP-AS SpaceDump IT AB,SE 194.156.179.0/24 AS3209 VODANET Vodafone GmbH,DE 194.180.25.0/24 AS21358 ATOS-ORIGIN-DE-AS Atos Information Technology GmbH,DE 194.187.24.0/22 AS8856 UKRNET UkrNet Ltd,UA 195.8.48.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.48.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.8.119.0/24 AS34304 TEENTELECOM Teen Telecom SRL,RO 195.39.252.0/23 AS29004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.42.232.0/22 AS15657 SPEEDBONE-AS Speedbone Internet & Connectivity GmbH,DE 195.47.242.0/24 AS9050 RTD ROMTELECOM S.A,RO 195.85.194.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.85.201.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.110.0.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.128.240.0/23 AS21202 DCSNET-AS Bredband2 AB,SE 195.149.119.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.189.174.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.216.234.0/24 AS31309 NMV-AS New Media Ventures BVBA,BE 195.234.156.0/24 AS25028 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 195.242.182.0/24 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.244.18.0/23 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 195.245.98.0/23 AS48918 GLOBALWAYS GLOBALWAYS AG,DE 196.3.182.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.3.183.0/24 AS37004 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 196.22.8.0/24 AS27822 Emerging Markets Communications de Argentina S.R.L,AR 196.22.11.0/24 AS16422 NEWSKIES-NETWORKS - New Skies Satellites, Inc.,US 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM - Bell Atlantic, Inc.,US 198.74.11.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.13.0/24 AS14573 KEYSPANENERGY-NE1 - Keyspan Energy,US 198.74.38.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.39.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.74.40.0/24 AS16966 SBCIDC-LSAN03 - AT&T Internet Services,US 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.96.0/19 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.192.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 198.163.214.0/24 AS21804 ACCESS-SK - Access Communications Co-operative Limited,CA 198.163.215.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.163.216.0/24 AS6327 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc.,CA 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 198.176.208.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.209.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.210.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.176.211.0/24 AS4318 ADC-ASN - Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,US 198.180.198.0/24 AS23715 SEOUL-INTGW-GXS-AP Global Exchange Services,HK 198.252.165.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.166.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.167.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.168.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.252.169.0/24 AS20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications,US 198.254.96.0/20 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.96.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.100.0/22 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 198.254.104.0/21 AS40430 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.85.9.0/24 AS852 ASN852 - TELUS Communications Inc.,CA 199.88.52.0/22 AS17018 QTS-SACRAMENTO-1 - Quality Investment Properties Sacramento, LLC,US 199.116.200.0/21 AS22830 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 199.120.150.0/24 AS30036 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp,US 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC-ASBLK-00721-00726 - DoD Network Information Center,US 200.1.112.0/24 AS29754 GO2TEL - GO2TEL.COM INC.,US 200.58.248.0/21 AS27849 200.81.48.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.49.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 200.81.50.0/24 AS11664 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas S.A.,AR 202.8.106.0/24 AS9530 SHINSEGAE-AS SHINSEGAE I&C Co., Ltd.,KR 202.21.158.0/23 AS23728 202.21.158.0/24 AS23728 202.21.159.0/24 AS23728 202.53.138.0/24 AS4058 CITICTEL-CPC-AS4058 CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited,HK 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network,CN 202.158.251.0/24 AS9255 CONNECTPLUS-AS Singapore Telecom,SG 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 203.160.48.0/21 AS38008 203.189.116.0/22 AS45606 203.189.116.0/24 AS45606 203.189.117.0/24 AS45606 203.189.118.0/24 AS45606 203.189.119.0/24 AS45606 204.10.88.0/21 AS3356 LEVEL3 - Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 204.10.94.0/23 AS30097 NUWAVE - NuWave,US 204.15.208.0/22 AS13706 COMPLETEWEBNET - CompleteWeb.Net LLC,US 204.16.96.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.97.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.98.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.16.99.0/24 AS19972 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.69.144.0/24 AS27283 RJF-INTERNET - Raymond James Financial, Inc.,US 204.106.16.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 204.155.28.0/22 AS40925 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 204.187.11.0/24 AS51113 ELEKTA-AS Elekta,GB 204.225.173.0/24 AS6407 PRIMUS-AS6407 - Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.,CA 205.159.44.0/24 AS40157 ADESA-CORP-AS - ADESA Corp,US 205.166.231.0/24 AS7029 WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 205.211.160.0/24 AS30045 UHN-ASN - University Health Network,CA 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company,US 206.223.224.0/24 AS21548 MTO - MTO Telecom Inc.,CA 207.2.120.0/21 AS6221 USCYBERSITES - US Cybersites, Inc,US 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc,US 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc.,US 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc.,US 207.254.128.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.128.0/24 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 207.254.136.0/21 AS30689 FLOW-NET - FLOW,JM 208.66.64.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.65.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.66.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.66.67.0/24 AS16936 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.67.132.0/22 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business,US 208.68.180.0/22 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.69.192.0/23 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.69.195.0/24 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 208.75.152.0/21 AS32146 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.20.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.76.21.0/24 AS31812 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.164.0/24 AS22659 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.77.166.0/24 AS4323 TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.,US 208.83.53.0/24 AS40569 YGOMI-AS - Ygomi LLC,US 208.84.232.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.234.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.237.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.84.238.0/24 AS33131 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 208.93.144.0/21 AS30693 SERVERHUB-PHOENIX - Eonix Corporation,US 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 ABOVENET - Abovenet Communications, Inc,US 209.193.112.0/20 AS209 ASN-QWEST - Qwest Communications Company, LLC,US 209.209.51.0/24 AS18687 MPOWER-2 - MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,US 209.209.224.0/19 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.248.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.250.0/23 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.209.251.0/24 AS19513 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.212.63.0/24 AS16467 ASN-NEXTWEB-R1 - Nextweb, Inc,US 209.234.112.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.114.0/23 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.116.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.117.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.118.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.119.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.120.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.121.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 209.234.122.0/24 AS32252 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.64.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.65.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.66.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.67.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.68.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.69.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.70.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.71.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.72.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.73.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.74.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.75.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.76.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.77.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.184.78.0/24 AS13071 -Reserved AS-,ZZ 213.255.128.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 213.255.144.0/20 AS24863 LINKdotNET-AS,EG 216.12.163.0/24 AS26627 AS-PILOSOFT - Pilosoft, Inc.,US 216.14.64.0/20 AS14728 MW-INDIANA - Mercury Wireless, LLC,US 216.146.0.0/19 AS11915 TELWEST-NETWORK-SVCS-STATIC - TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS LLC,US 216.152.24.0/22 AS22773 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc.,US 216.170.96.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.101.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.104.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.170.105.0/24 AS4565 MEGAPATH2-US - MegaPath Networks Inc.,US 216.234.132.0/24 AS14545 ADR-DRIVING-RECORDS - AMERICAN DRIVING RECORDS, INC.,US Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org 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 Jul 25 22:00:01 2014 From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:00:01 GMT Subject: BGP Update Report Message-ID: <201407252200.s6PM01WQ098015@wattle.apnic.net> BGP Update Report Interval: 12-Jul-14 -to- 19-Jul-14 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS12858 93683 3.5% 5510.8 -- MYNET A.S.,TR 2 - AS9829 75620 2.8% 53.7 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN 3 - AS14287 48903 1.8% 8150.5 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 4 - AS1659 47616 1.8% 189.0 -- ERX-TANET-ASN1 Tiawan Academic Network (TANet) Information Center,TW 5 - AS38141 47282 1.8% 5253.6 -- CITRAMEDIA-AS-ID PT. Citramedia Network,ID 6 - AS8402 33111 1.2% 48.8 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom",RU 7 - AS28573 27839 1.0% 8.1 -- NET Servi�os de Comunica��o S.A.,BR 8 - AS57320 26056 1.0% 1532.7 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 9 - AS26769 24230 0.9% 356.3 -- BANDCON - Bandcon,US 10 - AS647 23081 0.9% 162.5 -- DNIC-ASBLK-00616-00665 - DoD Network Information Center,US 11 - AS23752 19644 0.7% 159.7 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 12 - AS45899 17566 0.7% 41.0 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp,VN 13 - AS4775 16355 0.6% 778.8 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 14 - AS7029 14465 0.5% 4.0 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc,US 15 - AS25003 12854 0.5% 1168.5 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat Ltd,IL 16 - AS7552 12811 0.5% 10.4 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Corporation,VN 17 - AS25184 12742 0.5% 97.3 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 18 - AS42337 12067 0.5% 95.8 -- RESPINA-AS Respina Networks & Beyond PJSC,IR 19 - AS8151 11955 0.5% 10.8 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX 20 - AS4766 10294 0.4% 3.6 -- KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS54465 8523 0.3% 8523.0 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 2 - AS6459 8298 0.3% 8298.0 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 3 - AS14287 48903 1.8% 8150.5 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 4 - AS18135 7821 0.3% 7821.0 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP 5 - AS3 7265 0.3% 5212.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 6 - AS12858 93683 3.5% 5510.8 -- MYNET A.S.,TR 7 - AS38141 47282 1.8% 5253.6 -- CITRAMEDIA-AS-ID PT. Citramedia Network,ID 8 - AS34873 3337 0.1% 3337.0 -- IGIF-AS ACSS - Administracao Central do Sistema de Saude, I.P.,PT 9 - AS26661 9956 0.4% 3318.7 -- JCPS-ASN - Jeffco Public Schools,US 10 - AS54464 2875 0.1% 2875.0 -- D4LLC - D4 LLC,US 11 - AS23074 5859 0.2% 1953.0 -- Petr�leo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras,BR 12 - AS33643 1635 0.1% 1635.0 -- JELLYBELLY - Jelly Belly Candy Company,US 13 - AS57320 26056 1.0% 1532.7 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 14 - AS25003 12854 0.5% 1168.5 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat Ltd,IL 15 - AS3 1052 0.0% 5517.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 16 - AS58763 959 0.0% 959.0 -- GIGAVIRT-AS Gigavirt Technologies,IN 17 - AS37532 4822 0.2% 803.7 -- ZAMREN,ZM 18 - AS35093 1581 0.1% 790.5 -- RO-HTPASSPORT HighTech Passport Ltd SUA California San Jose SUCURSALA BUCURESTI ROMANIA,RO 19 - AS3 10128 0.4% 134.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 20 - AS4775 16355 0.6% 778.8 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 192.115.44.0/22 12799 0.5% AS25003 -- INTERNET_BINAT Internet Binat Ltd,IL 2 - 23.197.176.0/20 12077 0.4% AS26769 -- BANDCON - Bandcon,US 3 - 23.197.192.0/20 11940 0.4% AS26769 -- BANDCON - Bandcon,US 4 - 176.97.96.0/24 10715 0.4% AS57320 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 5 - 176.97.111.0/24 10715 0.4% AS57320 -- T-TELECOM-MNT-AS Ionit-telecom Ltd.,RU 6 - 78.109.192.0/20 10094 0.4% AS25184 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 7 - 185.17.128.0/24 10047 0.4% AS3 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 8 - 208.70.20.0/22 9817 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 9 - 208.73.244.0/22 9775 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 10 - 208.88.232.0/22 9773 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 11 - 216.162.0.0/20 9773 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 12 - 208.78.116.0/22 9761 0.3% AS14287 -- TRIAD-TELECOM - Triad Telecom, Inc.,US 13 - 192.58.232.0/24 9637 0.3% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 14 - 202.70.88.0/21 9188 0.3% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 15 - 206.152.15.0/24 8523 0.3% AS54465 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 16 - 202.70.64.0/21 8486 0.3% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 17 - 205.247.12.0/24 8298 0.3% AS6459 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 18 - 120.28.62.0/24 8104 0.3% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 19 - 222.127.0.0/24 8034 0.3% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 20 - 163.15.192.0/24 7844 0.3% AS1659 -- ERX-TANET-ASN1 Tiawan Academic Network (TANet) Information Center,TW Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog at nanog.org eof-list at ripe.net apops at apops.net routing-wg at ripe.net afnog at afnog.org From blake at ispn.net Fri Jul 25 22:21:01 2014 From: blake at ispn.net (Blake Hudson) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:21:01 -0500 Subject: Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice? In-Reply-To: <fca52eab9407fdb2d42fcc0ccc06eacb@thefnf.org> References: <0f05efecb3bc24608a7cf09ec850cdf8@thefnf.org> <53D272FA.6090401@ispn.net> <fca52eab9407fdb2d42fcc0ccc06eacb@thefnf.org> Message-ID: <53D2D84D.9030608@ispn.net> > > I would >> also suggest using stateless firewall rules and routing on your WAN >> devices. > > That does seem to be the common wisdom. I'm actually not 100% sure > what we've got in line. It's OpenWRT based all around, so I'm sure > IPTABLES (and maybe even some ebtables). > > iptables performs state tracking. So does pf in BSD. Sooner or later you'll run out of room in your state table. This is kernel tunable, and the OpenWRT guys have probably tuned for their needs, but their market is devices serving a few users, not (several) thousands. Even a pfsense box with GB's of RAM caps at 500k simultaneous flows. I would plan on an average of 1000 flows per residential user. Most users will use less, some will use more, and some poor sob will get DOS'd and use 10's or 100's of thousands. If I were to deploy CGN/stateful software I would keep it out of the core and either push it to the edge (user routers) or to a CGN appliance/cluster as a discrete entity in the network; I'd let the routers focus on routing and the switches focus on switching. > > I've got pretty much every Cisco router/switch in our lab, and an > EdgeRouter. > > What mikrotik should I evaluate? > > Our lab : https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/FNF_Lab > > >> If you've automatically discounted big name gear due to upfront costs, >> you might consider buying from a used equipment reseller (I can >> recommend a few, if needed). > > No. It's mostly for the customization/scripting etc. "SDN" and all > that jazz. ;) OK then. Just wanted to make sure you weren't excluding anything due to perceived budget issues. I'd think of a Cisco/Juniper/Brocade/whatever router as a special purpose server. You can use that Dell and OSS, but you've got a lot of extras in a Dell that can cause it to fail and you can't hot swap line cards, CPU's, etc in a Dell. I haven't used Mikrotik, but several of my clients, especially the ones involved with wireless, have been happy with the support and appliance options. They have the advantage of OSS without the disadvantages of a general purpose Dell/IBM/whatever server. > > >> >> If you do need to use NAT, I feel like 500+ users sharing a single NAT >> IP will result in poor quality of service and more admin overhead. > > Quite possibly. However if it's just for long tail v4 only sites, I > wonder how much it matters? Probably depends on the amount of v4 traffic you have on your network. My guess is that v4 flows (not necessarily bits) will be the majority of your traffic for many years. Even services that primarily utilize v6 may still have v4 content. I believe v4 is and will continue to be of vital importance even after all of your users have working v6 connectivity and devices with good v6 support. > > >> I didn't see it mentioned, where (and to whom) are you multihoming? > > Kansas City Kansas. Joesdatacenter.com is the current tower PoP. We > can get transit from him, of course peer with KCIX , and we'll > probably get transit from another local ISP in town (CTC). Of course > level3/att/vz et al are all in town/on net and just a very short fiber > hop away from Joes if we want to go that route. > > > Do >> you have a good working relationship with these folks (cell phone, >> email contacts that reach someone promptly)? > > Yes. Very much so. Sounds like you have that covered. > > Will you be considered a >> facilities based ISP (and subject to CALEA or other regulation)? >> > > > I'm not sure. CALEA compliance is a very big deal for us. Especially > in regards to making an open doc about being compliant and any > necessary patches to the FLOSS supply chain for compliance. Looks like something that warrants more investigation. > > As far as documentation goes, we're working on a FLOSS book: > https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Building_a_local_network_in_your_neighborhood > > > which will help folks build low cost community based access networks. > > We are all about building a (business/technical/operational) model > which can be readily and easily replicated by existing community based > organizations and not need to wait on muni networks (with all of the > complexity/risk/unknown unknowns etc that implies). The current bit > about cities having to ASK the federal govt (mother may I build an > ISP, even though the bullys have said I can't)? Are you kidding me? > What happened to techies banding together, getting some management > "bridge" types to organize the community and put up a network! Let me know how it goes and if you need any help (I'm in Lenexa). --Blake From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jul 25 22:33:03 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:33:03 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:52:05 -0400." <53D2D185.4020008@meetinghouse.net> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <53D2D185.4020008@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <25242.1406327583@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:52:05 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: > Still DC is a nice place to live. Depends on your definition of "nice". I'm perfectly OK with the fact that when I look out the window here in my office, the skyline is mostly National Forest. Not many places in DC have that going for them.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140725/3bc4dae3/attachment.pgp> From ops.lists at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 23:29:02 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 04:59:02 +0530 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> Astroturfing exists on both sides of the political spectrum but as far as I can see, like Joly says, Bennett doesn't astroturf. Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router if it bit them, so there's enough FUD to spare all over. On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote: > Personally, I don't get it. > > To mock the Brett Glass Google obsession (PK.EFF, Susan Crawford etc) - as > I do - while casting aspersions on Bennett and the ITIF, is hypocrisy. > > Astroturfing - defined as paid spoofing of grass roots support for a > position - definitely exists, and is heavily practiced by Telecom > incumbents, but Bennett isn't it. There is no way he is "grass roots". > > He is a pundit, an advocate, arguably a shill, but astroturf, no. > > j > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM, William Allen Simpson < > william.allen.simpson at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > On 7/22/14 12:07 PM, Paul WALL wrote: > > > >> Provided without comment: > >> > >> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality > >> > >> Thanks! This is nothing new for him. There's astroturf from > > him going back to '08 on NANOG. > > > > Remember when he was shilling for ITIF -- a "think tank" whose > > board was then co-chaired by conservative congress-critters and > > dominated by corporate governmental affairs (nee lobbyists)? > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --srs (iPad) From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jul 25 23:42:13 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:42:13 -0400 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:11:29 -0500." <2da267a008a7572030532698d886d9dc@thefnf.org> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> <8784.1406308923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <2da267a008a7572030532698d886d9dc@thefnf.org> Message-ID: <29135.1406331733@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:11:29 -0500, charles at thefnf.org said: > On 2014-07-25 12:22, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > The second big challenge is that to the best of my knowledge, there exist > > no router-class hardware that includes a TPM chip, > > OpenWRT x86? Run it on a decently specced laptop a couple gens old (like > a Dell Latitude 6500 or so). That's got TPM, plenty of ram. > Of course you can run on a server board (Dell Poweredge or something). I > prefer pfsense myself for full blown kit. Yeah, but it's hard to justify a PowerEdge for a Joe Sixpack consumer CPE (admittedly, I managed to leave that phrase out of 'router-class', mea culpa). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140725/3087838e/attachment.pgp> From brunner at nic-naa.net Fri Jul 25 23:44:23 2014 From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:44:23 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router > if it bit them ... i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior clue and i'm finding my imagination lacking. $friday. From charles at thefnf.org Fri Jul 25 23:57:11 2014 From: charles at thefnf.org (Charles N Wyble) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:57:11 -0500 Subject: EFF gets into the CPE router software business.. In-Reply-To: <29135.1406331733@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <15975.1406221461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1d5e366c506d5188f24c0c58b58d4899@thefnf.org> <656B966B-803B-41DB-B0EA-B8C590C4692C@gmail.com> <8784.1406308923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <2da267a008a7572030532698d886d9dc@thefnf.org> <29135.1406331733@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <acef2cc5-908e-4f0d-92d5-d89c5d2188ef@email.android.com> Well yes. :) Plenty of relatively inexpensive x86 based kit out there. Maybe with TPM? Never looked. Atom can push a good amount of packets. I am in the process of building an HCL for the various bits of the FreedomStack. (CPE/distribution/core etc). My family is a very heavy internet user. Both directions. An atom pfsense router and netgear 3800 has done the trick. Now to package them up with a slick / simplified / turnkey configuration and not have people balk at the price. I hadn't taken much security/TPM wise into account. Would be a good way to help folks deal with the increased expense. NSA proof, Snowden endorsed! :) On July 25, 2014 6:42:13 PM CDT, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:11:29 -0500, charles at thefnf.org said: >> On 2014-07-25 12:22, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> > The second big challenge is that to the best of my knowledge, there >exist >> > no router-class hardware that includes a TPM chip, >> >> OpenWRT x86? Run it on a decently specced laptop a couple gens old >(like >> a Dell Latitude 6500 or so). That's got TPM, plenty of ram. >> Of course you can run on a server board (Dell Poweredge or >something). I >> prefer pfsense myself for full blown kit. > >Yeah, but it's hard to justify a PowerEdge for a Joe Sixpack consumer >CPE >(admittedly, I managed to leave that phrase out of 'router-class', mea >culpa). > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >!DSPAM:53d2eb62262122034419612! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From surfer at mauigateway.com Sat Jul 26 00:35:45 2014 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:35:45 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins Message-ID: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> --- Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:52:05 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: > Still DC is a nice place to live. Depends on your definition of "nice". I'm perfectly OK with the fact that when I look out the window here in my office, the skyline is mostly National Forest. Not many places in DC have that going for them.... ------------------------------------------------- Just for fun... Nice is indeed subjective. We have crap for restaurants for the most part, the only "mall" here is tiny, traffic is terrible and everything is expensive, so we go do free stuff like: hiking http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~iacob/photos/Kauai/napali05.jpg http://www.world-of-waterfalls.com/images/Hanakoa_060L.jpg and surfing http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/db/ca/ff/dbcaff7ecc0504a9278e2b804cd85122.jpg scott One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off, I can actually sound intelligent in an interview (I do worse than geek-attempting-to-ask-a-girl-out-for-a-date) and I get to do the job I want from here instead of struggling through what I do for work. You gain some; you lose some. From ops.lists at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 00:40:09 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: <CAArzuos1P6DNqSVa4S19eZqbsnGSKfj63YCyyA1gfx-9odJv8g@mail.gmail.com> The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and add professors of law to this already toxic mix) On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote: > On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a >> router >> if it bit them ... >> > > i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company > officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior clue > and i'm finding my imagination lacking. > > $friday. > -- --srs (iPad) From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jul 26 01:02:08 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:02:08 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530." <CAArzuos1P6DNqSVa4S19eZqbsnGSKfj63YCyyA1gfx-9odJv8g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> <CAArzuos1P6DNqSVa4S19eZqbsnGSKfj63YCyyA1gfx-9odJv8g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5178.1406336528@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said: > The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and > add professors of law to this already toxic mix) So what you're saying is that the debate is in total violation of RFC1925, section 4? :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140725/27e978cf/attachment.pgp> From ops.lists at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 01:10:16 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:40:16 +0530 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <5178.1406336528@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> <CAArzuos1P6DNqSVa4S19eZqbsnGSKfj63YCyyA1gfx-9odJv8g@mail.gmail.com> <5178.1406336528@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <CAArzuouKJEZD9ti6OEO3m6cf0_WtxtJVCKyicrMC1zGMLXpTng@mail.gmail.com> 5 too. Agglutinating multiple separate problems into a single complex title 2 regulation solution Enough hot air driven thrust is being generated to ensure porcine aviation too, as section 3 assures us. On 26-Jul-2014 6:32 am, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said: > > The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately > (and > > add professors of law to this already toxic mix) > > So what you're saying is that the debate is in total violation of > RFC1925, section 4? :) > From rsk at gsp.org Sat Jul 26 11:04:14 2014 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:04:14 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> Message-ID: <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: > One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...] It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would not exist* were it not for the Internet are among the most resistant to the simple, obvious concept that telecommuting allows them to hire the best and brightest regardless of geography. Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as possible, staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. Asking net admins to do stupid, wasteful, expensive things like "commute 3 hours a day" and "live in areas with ridiculously inflated housing prices" is a good way to filter *out* the employees one would most like to have. ---rsk From deleskie at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 11:29:58 2014 From: deleskie at gmail.com (jim deleskie) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:29:58 -0300 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> Message-ID: <CAJL_ZMOsgd+J_AzJvGDHEaDMkrUEOgQ1aTzurjebxtudYyLPFQ@mail.gmail.com> Rich, In principal I agree, and I've said this many times, for years I've telecommuted myself, mostly effectively. I'd work much longer hours, but not always worked as efficiently during all of those hours. When I started my own company, with $$ be in short supply like all start ups I I planned to have as many folks telecommute as possible. In some cases it worked out, in others it was a terrible failure. Maybe it was my hiring choices, maybe it was being a bad "manager" but without people in the office it was harder to tell. Also with "most" people under one roof now, I also see the on going information sharing that isn't as possible with a mostly remote office. -jim On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: > > One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...] > > It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would > not exist* were it not for the Internet are among the most resistant > to the simple, obvious concept that telecommuting allows them to hire > the best and brightest regardless of geography. > > Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. > And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as > possible, > staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. Asking > net admins to do stupid, wasteful, expensive things like "commute 3 hours > a day" and "live in areas with ridiculously inflated housing prices" is a > good way to filter *out* the employees one would most like to have. > > ---rsk > From bill at herrin.us Sat Jul 26 14:57:27 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:57:27 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXYBr4y7H6AES4n7UCRODRzOhKyyM8k1rJ=ibDrbAMZYg@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: >> One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...] > > It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would > not exist* were it not for the Internet are among the most resistant > to the simple, obvious concept that telecommuting allows them to hire > the best and brightest regardless of geography. Hi Rich, It's hard to manage telecommuters. Any manager can see whether or not you're at your desk, but gauging your work output and assessing whether it's happening at an appropriate rate is actually pretty challenging. This is especially true of systems administration where the ideal output of your efforts is that nothing is observed to have happened -- you prevented all problems from escalating to where they became visible. So not only does your manager have to be really good at management, he has to understand your work well enough to assess the quality and quantity of your results too. In other words, you may be asking more of your manager than you're willing to ask of yourself. Generally speaking, you're more valuable to a company if that equation is the other way around. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From joly at punkcast.com Sat Jul 26 15:10:52 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:10:52 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3H5UG5BBpphvSYJp6o3hNLzN5ZNUMk5begNACNs2_e6A@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. > And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as > possible, > staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. > Automattic (WordPress) works like that. There's a book about it. http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Without-Pants-WordPress-com/dp/1118660633 j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From ryangard at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 15:49:13 2014 From: ryangard at gmail.com (Ryan Gard) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:49:13 -0400 Subject: FTTH and DSLAM Access Vendors In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzOb4Z0AwXvnhzBsR=1C8eqv2JNWsMJsoX48S+V_1RUbCA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOb4Z0AwXvnhzBsR=1C8eqv2JNWsMJsoX48S+V_1RUbCA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAAQxoQFzJjvhQY0HsZozABCH3KwQPVUw+ugu7_E3vSVp=HT_og@mail.gmail.com> I would definitely find any information on this quite useful. I've had clients try to make this very comparison in the past, and it can become quite tedious when dealing with sales staff from 6 different companies who want to sell you something, while not explaining further as to why their platform is better than 'xyz' On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > I am looking for comparisons between the following FTTH GPON and VDSL2 > access platforms. Has anyone recently compared the capabilities of each of > these platforms? > > Alcatel-Lucent 7360 ISAM > Adtran Total Access 5000 > Calix E7 > Cisco ME4600 > Huawei MA5600T > Zhone MXK > > They all look great on paper, but there has to be some key differences > other than price. Besides the vendors listed above, is there anyone else in > this market? > -- Ryan Gard From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Jul 26 15:54:17 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:54:17 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3H5UG5BBpphvSYJp6o3hNLzN5ZNUMk5begNACNs2_e6A@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> <CAM9VJk3H5UG5BBpphvSYJp6o3hNLzN5ZNUMk5begNACNs2_e6A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D3CF29.2010608@meetinghouse.net> Joly MacFie wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > >> Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. >> And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as >> possible, >> staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. >> > Automattic (WordPress) works like that. > > There's a book about it. > http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Without-Pants-WordPress-com/dp/1118660633 > Funny thing. A place I'm working now (not as a sysadmin, though) builds intelligent transportation systems for buses (dispatch systems, passenger information, and the like) - half of us are spread all over the place. A lot of us live pretty far from the home office, and spend most of our time working from home; then there are all the folks on the road doing sales; and the deployment teams working on-site at customer locations. About the only folks who are actually in the office a lot are the design engineers and the folks who build hardware. Works pretty well - though proposals get kind of interesting (which is what I mostly do these days). The problem isn't so much remoteness (email, audio bridges, and webex work well enough) - it's finding blocks of time for meetings - everyone is juggling too many things - kind of organizational ADHD. Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for actually having everybody in the same physical place - makes those impromptu hallway conversations a lot easier. Cheers, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From jimpop at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 16:02:24 2014 From: jimpop at gmail.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:02:24 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> Message-ID: <CAGfsgR37DcK-LbqN9iDnsof+hz+ja4j+L4QDsZZhj7kWhoOb9Q@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: >> One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...] > > It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would > not exist* were it not for the Internet are among the most resistant > to the simple, obvious concept that telecommuting allows them to hire > the best and brightest regardless of geography. > > Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. > And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as possible, > staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. Asking > net admins to do stupid, wasteful, expensive things like "commute 3 hours > a day" and "live in areas with ridiculously inflated housing prices" is a > good way to filter *out* the employees one would most like to have. Something like 40% of IBM'ers telecommute, saving IBM $2.9B (if you believe some PR). And IBM is about as large and bloated, report heavy, mgmt heavy, conference call heavy, that a company can get. :-) -Jim P. From amitchell at isipp.com Sat Jul 26 16:23:23 2014 From: amitchell at isipp.com (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:23:23 -0600 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1406376001.2814.nanog@nanog.org> References: <mailman.1.1406376001.2814.nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <345B77FA-C6E7-4839-ABFD-E66E536626F7@isipp.com> Suresh wrote: > The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and > add professors of law to this already toxic mix) Ahem. I resemble that remark. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Author: Section 6 of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose From ops.lists at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 16:29:37 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:59:37 +0530 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <345B77FA-C6E7-4839-ABFD-E66E536626F7@isipp.com> References: <mailman.1.1406376001.2814.nanog@nanog.org> <345B77FA-C6E7-4839-ABFD-E66E536626F7@isipp.com> Message-ID: <CAArzuotvrwP9RRGUS_udCSwJta=TxEy+sB9o24LP=As30ciiUw@mail.gmail.com> I hardly ever see you say something wrong about net neutrality or anything else :). No, other, far more usual suspects in mind here. On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell at isipp.com> wrote: > > Suresh wrote: > > > The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately > (and > > add professors of law to this already toxic mix) > > Ahem. I resemble that remark. > > Anne > > Anne P. Mitchell, > Attorney at Law > CEO/President > Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee > Author: Section 6 of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 > Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > -- --srs (iPad) From mike at mtcc.com Sat Jul 26 16:37:38 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:37:38 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXYBr4y7H6AES4n7UCRODRzOhKyyM8k1rJ=ibDrbAMZYg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> <CAP-guGXYBr4y7H6AES4n7UCRODRzOhKyyM8k1rJ=ibDrbAMZYg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D3D952.3040200@mtcc.com> On 07/26/2014 07:57 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: >>> One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...] >> It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would >> not exist* were it not for the Internet are among the most resistant >> to the simple, obvious concept that telecommuting allows them to hire >> the best and brightest regardless of geography. > Hi Rich, > > It's hard to manage There, I fixed it for you. Mike > telecommuters. Any manager can see whether or not > you're at your desk, but gauging your work output and assessing > whether it's happening at an appropriate rate is actually pretty > challenging. > > This is especially true of systems administration where the ideal > output of your efforts is that nothing is observed to have happened -- > you prevented all problems from escalating to where they became > visible. So not only does your manager have to be really good at > management, he has to understand your work well enough to assess the > quality and quantity of your results too. > > In other words, you may be asking more of your manager than you're > willing to ask of yourself. Generally speaking, you're more valuable > to a company if that equation is the other way around. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > From mike at mtcc.com Sat Jul 26 16:56:43 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:56:43 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMOsgd+J_AzJvGDHEaDMkrUEOgQ1aTzurjebxtudYyLPFQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> <CAJL_ZMOsgd+J_AzJvGDHEaDMkrUEOgQ1aTzurjebxtudYyLPFQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D3DDCB.3060505@mtcc.com> On 07/26/2014 04:29 AM, jim deleskie wrote: > Rich, > > In principal I agree, and I've said this many times, for years I've > telecommuted myself, mostly effectively. I'd work much longer hours, but > not always worked as efficiently during all of those hours. When I started > my own company, with $$ be in short supply like all start ups I I planned > to have as many folks telecommute as possible. In some cases it worked > out, in others it was a terrible failure. Maybe it was my hiring choices, > maybe it was being a bad "manager" but without people in the office it was > harder to tell. Also with "most" people under one roof now, I also see the > on going information sharing that isn't as possible with a mostly remote > office. > Having done about every conceivable combination, I think the sweet spot is, unsurprisingly, somewhere in between. Telecommuting is great if you need a lot of undisturbed time, but it's horrible if you need interaction with coworkers. So for me, at least (primarily a dev type) having an intersection in the middle of the day a couple days a week at least is the best balance. That said, I think that part of this might be solved with technology somehow. A big problem, IMO, is that we use tech much too formally in that meetings get scheduled instead of just interrupting somebody at their desk which often blows things way out of proportion to their actual import, and worse delays resolving issues. Maybe the webrtc stuff will help this by making ad hoc communication trivial and pervasive and wrest it from the hands of these bloated, overwrought conferencing-as-business-model abominations we have to deal with. Mike From djahandarie at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 17:09:34 2014 From: djahandarie at gmail.com (Darius Jahandarie) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:09:34 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMOsgd+J_AzJvGDHEaDMkrUEOgQ1aTzurjebxtudYyLPFQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> <CAJL_ZMOsgd+J_AzJvGDHEaDMkrUEOgQ1aTzurjebxtudYyLPFQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAFANWtX4nq6EukFn=jOLzfrE5JN4U6Q8kj9huMvq6ho=ECjoDQ@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:29 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie at gmail.com> wrote: > In principal I agree, and I've said this many times, for years I've > telecommuted myself, mostly effectively. I'd work much longer hours, but > not always worked as efficiently during all of those hours. [snip] It's worth noting that working at max efficiency is often not even the best thing for a company. This has been known for years [1], but most companies don't put it into practice. [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Principles-Product-Development-Flow/dp/1935401009 From owen at delong.com Sat Jul 26 17:13:03 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:13:03 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> Personally, I think the SF bay area has you beat. Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off: Weather In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect from a hot, humid, fetid swamp. In the winter, you can make ice cream outside without rock salt (though there’s plenty of salt available on the roads). The spring and fall aren’t bad (for about 2 weeks each). Otherwise, the weather is not at all wonderful in that area. SF has a very wide variety of cultural exhibitions, activities, and institutions. We also have nearly as wide a variety of ethnic cuisine as you can find in New York (wider than DC/NoVA from what I’ve seen, actually). We also have a major concentration of technology and internet-oriented startups, including such iconic names as Google, Facebook, Adobe, Dropbox, Netflix, Apple, Fry’s Electronics, and more. We’re the only region to have three TechShops in addition to a number of other makerspaces and hackerspaces, including the original Noise Bridge SF (to the best of my knowledge, the first public maker/hacker space in the US, having opened its doors in 2008 (or possibly earlier), patterned after such spaces in Europe. The bay area has great cultural diversity, lots of fun things to do, and is within a relatively short drive of mountains, desert, ocean (beaches and cliffs available), awesome SCUBA diving, great downhill and XC skiing, hang gliding, sailing, and more. There’s a strong and active General Aviation community and lots of places to rent airplanes and helicopters. Contrary to Bill’s claims, we have nearly as many data centers housing lots of interconnect, content providers, etc. out here, too. We’re also a primary gateway to Asia and the Pacific as well as Australia. Our weather is pretty much temperate year round. Owen On Jul 25, 2014, at 2:31 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nolan Rollo <nrollo at kw-corp.com> wrote: >> I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good >> home for a Network Admin... access to physical, reliable >> upstream routes? good selection of local taverns? What, in >> your opinion, makes a good location for a Network Admin >> and where in the US would you find that? > > Hi Nolan, > > Back in the days of lore when the Internet ran over telephone lines > instead of the other way around, the most substantial long haul > communications hub in the country was Northern Virginia's Dulles > Corridor. More than any other area, leased lines to and from anywhere > transited northern VA because that's how the long distance telephone > infrastructure was built. Move the call here, switch it, move it back > out. This made it the cheapest place to hub your Internet backbone. > Indeed, the first large Internet Exchange Point, MAE-East was > originally a FDDI ring at 8100 Boone Blvd, Vienna VA in the area known > as Tysons Corner. > > The Internet is much more distributed now, but the area still retains > its legacy. Lots of Internet companies continue to house major > facilities here and operations such as ARIN are headquartered here. > More, many of the folks you've come to know on NANOG and in other > forums live and work here. > > Bonuses: > With the possible exception of NYC, nowhere in the U.S. has more or > finer quality cultural institutions than DC and its suburbs (Northern > Virginia). The Smithsonian's extensive network of museums, the Kennedy > Center, and so on. > Federal money tends not to wander far, so you'll never want for paying > work in Northern Virginia. > Nowhere I've traveled has a broader selection of good restaurants. > Most places have a local food with a bunch of good restaurants for > that food, but we have all the foods and at least a few restaurants > for each which are exceptional. > Casual conversation is heavy on politics and matters of import > > Less than wonderful: > Not the worst traffic in the nation but not far from it > High rent, high cost of living > Political conversation is inescapable > > >> good selection of local taverns? > > Octoberfest at the German embassy annex at Dulles Airport. ;) > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From nanog-amuse at foofus.com Sat Jul 26 17:52:19 2014 From: nanog-amuse at foofus.com (AMuse) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:52:19 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> Message-ID: <53D3EAD3.10101@foofus.com> Don't forget that, while Virginia has MAE-EAST, the Bay area was the sister location: MAE-WEST. MAE WEST now sits on the property of the NASA Ames Research Center, another excellent local employer and center for high-tech research and development. They do ultra-high-speed networking research in particular, and have lots of interconnects down south to JPL and other universities and centers. On 7/26/14, 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Personally, I think the SF bay area has you beat. > > Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off: > > Weather > In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect from a hot, humid, fetid swamp. > In the winter, you can make ice cream outside without rock salt (though there’s plenty of > salt available on the roads). > The spring and fall aren’t bad (for about 2 weeks each). Otherwise, the weather is not > at all wonderful in that area. > > SF has a very wide variety of cultural exhibitions, activities, and institutions. We also have nearly as wide a variety of ethnic cuisine as you can find in New York (wider than DC/NoVA from what I’ve seen, actually). We also have a major concentration of technology and internet-oriented startups, including such iconic names as Google, Facebook, Adobe, Dropbox, Netflix, Apple, Fry’s Electronics, and more. We’re the only region to have three TechShops in addition to a number of other makerspaces and hackerspaces, including the original Noise Bridge SF (to the best of my knowledge, the first public maker/hacker space in the US, having opened its doors in 2008 (or possibly earlier), patterned after such spaces in Europe. > > The bay area has great cultural diversity, lots of fun things to do, and is within a relatively short drive of mountains, desert, ocean (beaches and cliffs available), awesome SCUBA diving, great downhill and XC skiing, hang gliding, sailing, and more. There’s a strong and active General Aviation community and lots of places to rent airplanes and helicopters. > > Contrary to Bill’s claims, we have nearly as many data centers housing lots of interconnect, content providers, etc. out here, too. We’re also a primary gateway to Asia and the Pacific as well as Australia. > > Our weather is pretty much temperate year round. > > Owen > > > On Jul 25, 2014, at 2:31 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nolan Rollo <nrollo at kw-corp.com> wrote: >>> I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good >>> home for a Network Admin... access to physical, reliable >>> upstream routes? good selection of local taverns? What, in >>> your opinion, makes a good location for a Network Admin >>> and where in the US would you find that? >> Hi Nolan, >> >> Back in the days of lore when the Internet ran over telephone lines >> instead of the other way around, the most substantial long haul >> communications hub in the country was Northern Virginia's Dulles >> Corridor. More than any other area, leased lines to and from anywhere >> transited northern VA because that's how the long distance telephone >> infrastructure was built. Move the call here, switch it, move it back >> out. This made it the cheapest place to hub your Internet backbone. >> Indeed, the first large Internet Exchange Point, MAE-East was >> originally a FDDI ring at 8100 Boone Blvd, Vienna VA in the area known >> as Tysons Corner. >> >> The Internet is much more distributed now, but the area still retains >> its legacy. Lots of Internet companies continue to house major >> facilities here and operations such as ARIN are headquartered here. >> More, many of the folks you've come to know on NANOG and in other >> forums live and work here. >> >> Bonuses: >> With the possible exception of NYC, nowhere in the U.S. has more or >> finer quality cultural institutions than DC and its suburbs (Northern >> Virginia). The Smithsonian's extensive network of museums, the Kennedy >> Center, and so on. >> Federal money tends not to wander far, so you'll never want for paying >> work in Northern Virginia. >> Nowhere I've traveled has a broader selection of good restaurants. >> Most places have a local food with a bunch of good restaurants for >> that food, but we have all the foods and at least a few restaurants >> for each which are exceptional. >> Casual conversation is heavy on politics and matters of import >> >> Less than wonderful: >> Not the worst traffic in the nation but not far from it >> High rent, high cost of living >> Political conversation is inescapable >> >> >>> good selection of local taverns? >> Octoberfest at the German embassy annex at Dulles Airport. ;) >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From sean at donelan.com Sat Jul 26 19:50:38 2014 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1407261518350.8470@cnex.qbaryna.pbz> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Nolan Rollo wrote: > I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good home for a > Network Admin... access to physical, reliable upstream routes? good > selection of local taverns? What, in your opinion, makes a good location > for a Network Admin and where in the US would you find that? Some place with someone willing to pay for a network admin services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has employment and salary data for computer and network administrators covering the entire USA. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151142.htm Other than that, what people are willing to accept, and what people are willing to offer will vary alot. Self-employed, small, medium, large organization. Rural/city. Family/single activities. Work anywhere/Get away from work. Colloborative/solitary environment. And so on. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer-systems-administrators.htm From mpetach at netflight.com Sat Jul 26 21:25:29 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:25:29 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D2831A.9020302@gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1P-x0XBSFk3M21LtnFgUXpNpBmB_FGRtdHvKmJBkgS9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuoujRPWZCnTtAtxjpCMsLVp284-LctCy6aKLhPqVEJxxDw@mail.gmail.com> <53D2EBD7.2000404@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pnrYW-HZdWihY-DhL2Dw-_iQ4GkjUZjc2+bnzXiB9VSQ@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote: > On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a >> router >> if it bit them ... >> > > i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company > officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior clue > and i'm finding my imagination lacking. > Oh, they're out there. Not every company can be so lucky as to have an awesome corporate general counsel, but I've gotta say, they do exist; I'm amazingly lucky to have a corporate general counsel who is technically savvy, genuinely personable, incredibly smart, and one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. #shamless plug http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2014/03/14/at-yahoo-ron-bell-stood-up-for-users-privacy.html?page=all Matt > $friday. > > From surfer at mauigateway.com Sat Jul 26 22:34:14 2014 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:34:14 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins Message-ID: <20140726153414.192C8857@m0005299.ppops.net> --- sean at donelan.com wrote: From: Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com> http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151142.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer-systems-administrators.htm -------------------------------------------------- As is usual, you come up with the coolest data on stuff. This http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/sw151142.png "Annual Mean Wage of Network and Computer Systems Administrators by State, May 2013" is surprising, though. The numbers are much lower than I would expect. scott From surfer at mauigateway.com Sat Jul 26 22:55:03 2014 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:55:03 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins Message-ID: <20140726155503.192C8819@m0005299.ppops.net> --- mike at mtcc.com wrote: From: Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> Maybe the webrtc stuff will help this by making ad hoc communication trivial --------------------------------------------- Some work from home well and some don't. It all depends on self-discipline. However, for those that can telecommute successfully (I've done that in the past, so I have experience to speak from) easy communication of various types (text, audio, or a/v when needed) with team members is crucial. scott From jbates at paradoxnetworks.net Sat Jul 26 23:56:24 2014 From: jbates at paradoxnetworks.net (Jack Bates) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:56:24 -0500 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140726155503.192C8819@m0005299.ppops.net> References: <20140726155503.192C8819@m0005299.ppops.net> Message-ID: <53D44028.3010508@paradoxnetworks.net> On 7/26/2014 5:55 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > Some work from home well and some don't. It all depends > on self-discipline. However, for those that can > telecommute successfully (I've done that in the past, so > I have experience to speak from) easy communication of > various types (text, audio, or a/v when needed) with team > members is crucial. > > To be fair, it also depends on the office environment. People slack off in the office just as easily. I find that I prefer self-imposed stress running my own business rather than being stuck in a job where I was unappreciated and had to listen to how replaceable I was. Not all work environments are the same. I definitely agree on the communication, though. However, I think that is vital in any environment. Has this mailing list never helped you out? Have you never made contacts online that have been invaluable? When working in a team, it is vital to have team communications, but does our expertise stop at the team? Perhaps I view things differently since I'm surrounded in real life by people who don't do what I do. My online contacts are my comrades, my sounding board, and my teachers. It's rather lonely to accomplish something and have no one to share it with. I still work in a team environment, but my team covers all aspects of the business. The fun of writing code or designing a routing policy tends to escape my fellow team members. Then again, I probably don't appreciate the success of a sale or successful price negotiations. Jack P.S. You know who you are that have helped me over the years. Thank you. From bill at herrin.us Sun Jul 27 01:01:19 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:01:19 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off: > Weather > In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect from a hot, humid, fetid swamp. > In the winter, you can make ice cream outside without rock salt (though there’s plenty of > salt available on the roads). Meh. The weather is always temperate indoors. You ARE a computer guy, right? > Contrary to Bill’s claims, we have nearly as many data centers > housing lots of interconnect, content providers, etc. out here, > too. We’re also a primary gateway to Asia and the Pacific as > well as Australia. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that silicon valley lacks for anything of interest to computer and networking folks. You even have heavy taxation, heavy regulation and a state government ever on the brink of financial collapse, all things less prevalent in Northern Virginia. Though if you really enjoy those things you can always visit DC or the People's Republic of Maryland. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From mike at mtcc.com Sun Jul 27 01:20:40 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:20:40 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D453E8.1090107@mtcc.com> On 07/26/2014 06:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off: >> Weather >> In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect from a hot, humid, fetid swamp. >> In the winter, you can make ice cream outside without rock salt (though there’s plenty of >> salt available on the roads). > Meh. The weather is always temperate indoors. You ARE a computer guy, right? > > >> Contrary to Bill’s claims, we have nearly as many data centers >> housing lots of interconnect, content providers, etc. out here, >> too. We’re also a primary gateway to Asia and the Pacific as >> well as Australia. > I wouldn't dream of suggesting that silicon valley lacks for anything > of interest to computer and networking folks. You even have heavy > taxation, heavy regulation and a state government ever on the brink of > financial collapse, all things less prevalent in Northern Virginia. > Though if you really enjoy those things you can always visit DC or the > People's Republic of Maryland. > Don't forget the hipsters with their skinny jeans. And $1M median housing prices. It's awful out here. We're on the brink of collapse and will be joining the ranks of Mississippi soon, with our main export being deep fried silicon. Mike From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jul 27 05:36:21 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 01:36:21 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:34:14 -0700." <20140726153414.192C8857@m0005299.ppops.net> References: <20140726153414.192C8857@m0005299.ppops.net> Message-ID: <86563.1406439381@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:34:14 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said: > "Annual Mean Wage of Network and Computer Systems > Administrators by State, May 2013" > > is surprising, though. The numbers are much lower than > I would expect. Remember that's the *mean*. There's a lot of small companies that have some kid that has a 2 year degree and the first Crisco/MCSE cert and not much else. They're not going to get rockstar salaries in places like Wyoming or West Virginia.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/bda4fbeb/attachment.pgp> From owen at delong.com Sun Jul 27 16:28:55 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 09:28:55 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> > On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:01 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off: >> Weather >> In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect from a hot, humid, fetid swamp. >> In the winter, you can make ice cream outside without rock salt (though there’s plenty of >> salt available on the roads). > > Meh. The weather is always temperate indoors. You ARE a computer guy, right? Yes and no. I like being able to go outside and enjoy things outside of my job environment. To me, weather matters. I guess if I had grown up or been stuck in the DC area for a long time, I might not be so focused on the outdoors. >> Contrary to Bill’s claims, we have nearly as many data centers >> housing lots of interconnect, content providers, etc. out here, >> too. We’re also a primary gateway to Asia and the Pacific as >> well as Australia. > > I wouldn't dream of suggesting that silicon valley lacks for anything > of interest to computer and networking folks. You even have heavy > taxation, heavy regulation and a state government ever on the brink of > financial collapse, all things less prevalent in Northern Virginia. > Though if you really enjoy those things you can always visit DC or the > People's Republic of Maryland. Meh... I don't think my taxation is that high overall. Yes, I pay a slightly higher sales tax than VA, but IIRC, our income tax rate is lower. My property taxes are definitely lower and more predictable. Owen From ruairi.carroll at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 17:13:06 2014 From: ruairi.carroll at gmail.com (Ruairi Carroll) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3H5UG5BBpphvSYJp6o3hNLzN5ZNUMk5begNACNs2_e6A@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140725173545.1938DE91@m0048139.ppops.net> <20140726110414.GA4064@gsp.org> <CAM9VJk3H5UG5BBpphvSYJp6o3hNLzN5ZNUMk5begNACNs2_e6A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CANdN9jZFCTpTux5AzrG1B-fRzGkBwN6EFsV7t5ThyNpxZG9x=Q@mail.gmail.com> On 26 July 2014 17:10, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote: > > > Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. > > And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as > > possible, > > staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. > > > > Automattic (WordPress) works like that. > > There's a book about it. > http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Without-Pants-WordPress-com/dp/1118660633 > > Yes, and the book title is not at all misleading! However there's a few key differences between Automattic and your regular company. First is that we're flat, so there's no employees to manage (ie: you manage your own workload). Second is that we dont do meetings. Period. Overall, I think remote working can be successful, however you need a few things in place: 1. More efficient information sharing system than meetings (*cough* blogs). 2. Flat to almost flat structure. 3. Senior hires who can manage their own workloads and not be dependant on a "big boss" to dole out work. There's still some issues that need to be worked out (Timezones, the bane of my existence!), however the benefit of being location agnostic HUGELY outweighs petty fights over the office thermostat, office politics and being forced to recruit from a localised talent pool. The downside is that being located in a different region than you're buying your equipment means that you get stiffed on vendor lunches :) /Ruairi > j > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 27 17:41:15 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:41:15 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:01 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > >> Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off: > >> Weather > >> In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect > from a hot, humid, fetid swamp. > >> In the winter, you can make ice cream outside without > rock salt (though there’s plenty of > >> salt available on the roads). > > > > Meh. The weather is always temperate indoors. You ARE a computer guy, > right? > > Yes and no. I like being able to go outside and enjoy things outside of my > job environment. > > To me, weather matters. > > I guess if I had grown up or been stuck in the DC area for a long time, I > might not be so focused on the outdoors. > > >> Contrary to Bill’s claims, we have nearly as many data centers > >> housing lots of interconnect, content providers, etc. out here, > >> too. We’re also a primary gateway to Asia and the Pacific as > >> well as Australia. > > > > I wouldn't dream of suggesting that silicon valley lacks for anything > > of interest to computer and networking folks. You even have heavy > > taxation, heavy regulation and a state government ever on the brink of > > financial collapse, all things less prevalent in Northern Virginia. > > Though if you really enjoy those things you can always visit DC or the > > People's Republic of Maryland. > > Meh... I don't think my taxation is that high overall. Yes, I pay a > slightly higher sales tax than VA, but IIRC, our income tax rate is lower. > My property taxes are definitely lower and more predictable. > > Owen > > Shush, Owen! It's already crowded enough out here--the last thing we need is more people thinking it's a good place to work. ;P You wouldn't like it here in the Bay Area. It's horrible, there's pollution all the time, the traffic is terrible, there's no reasonable public transportation, there's no late-night eateries for when you finish that maintenance window at 2am. You definitely don't want to live here. :D And as far as that government data about salary goes...yeah, that's definitely the mean, and doesn't represent the full range. My W2 last year was *mumble*-times the listed mean for some parts of the country. Telecommuting can work out amazingly well, for the right people. But it takes dedication and focus, and a relentless willingness to be accessible to your coworkers. Matt From jbates at paradoxnetworks.net Sun Jul 27 19:04:31 2014 From: jbates at paradoxnetworks.net (Jack Bates) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:04:31 -0500 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D54D3F.6010806@paradoxnetworks.net> On 7/27/2014 12:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > You wouldn't like it here in the Bay Area. It's horrible, there's > pollution all the time, the traffic is terrible, there's no reasonable > public transportation, there's no late-night eateries for when you > finish that maintenance window at 2am. You definitely don't want to > live here. :D Well, definitely not. I'll stick to my ranch in rural Oklahoma. Since I was young, I've always wanted to have a high speed connection to a house in the middle of nowhere. Originally, I liked the mountain ranges my great grandmother used to live on. These days, I'm happy with my crop fields and trees, even if it is a bit flat. Turns out, it's easier to bury fiber when you don't have to go through a mountain. :) I know I'm not alone in my duality; the need to balance my geek and my need for nature. It generally does hurt the ability to drive into an office daily, though. Then again, it's over a mile as the crow flies to my nearest neighbor. Still working on a good wireless repeater system to get me from the house to a good resting place in the forest. Trees and wifi not friendly. lol Jack From chipps at chipps.com Sun Jul 27 19:20:32 2014 From: chipps at chipps.com (Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:20:32 -0500 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <53D54D3F.6010806@paradoxnetworks.net> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> <53D54D3F.6010806@paradoxnetworks.net> Message-ID: <000101cfa9cf$d5fd5eb0$81f81c10$@chipps.com> Use this: http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20140512-drone-offers-wi-fi-signal.ece -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jack Bates Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:05 PM To: Matthew Petach; Owen DeLong Cc: NANOG (nanog at nanog.org) Subject: Re: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins On 7/27/2014 12:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > You wouldn't like it here in the Bay Area. It's horrible, there's > pollution all the time, the traffic is terrible, there's no reasonable > public transportation, there's no late-night eateries for when you > finish that maintenance window at 2am. You definitely don't want to > live here. :D Well, definitely not. I'll stick to my ranch in rural Oklahoma. Since I was young, I've always wanted to have a high speed connection to a house in the middle of nowhere. Originally, I liked the mountain ranges my great grandmother used to live on. These days, I'm happy with my crop fields and trees, even if it is a bit flat. Turns out, it's easier to bury fiber when you don't have to go through a mountain. :) I know I'm not alone in my duality; the need to balance my geek and my need for nature. It generally does hurt the ability to drive into an office daily, though. Then again, it's over a mile as the crow flies to my nearest neighbor. Still working on a good wireless repeater system to get me from the house to a good resting place in the forest. Trees and wifi not friendly. lol Jack From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Sun Jul 27 14:15:41 2014 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:15:41 +0000 Subject: FW: Public Notice: FCC asks for comments on network security Message-ID: <CFFA81E7.DB47E%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> FYI. The U.S. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a Public Notice on Friday (copied below), seeking comment on the “implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations”. Comments are due by September 26. Some folks here may wish to send the FCC comments on this, especially areas pertaining to preventing IP address spoofing. - Jason DA 14-1066 Released: July 25, 2014 FCC’S PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU REQUESTS COMMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CSRIC III CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES In March 2012, the FCC’s third Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC III)1 unanimously adopted voluntary recommendations for Internet service providers (ISPs) to combat three major cybersecurity threats: (1) botnet attacks; (2) domain name fraud; and (3) Internet route hijacking.2 Among other stakeholders, leading ISPs participated in the development of these recommendations and publicly committed to implementing them.3 The recommendations included voluntary measures in three areas: an Anti-Bot Code of Conduct to mitigate the proliferation of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks,4 steps to better secure the Domain Name System (DNS) through incremental implementation of DNSSEC, and steps to strengthen the security of the Internet’s inter-domain routing infrastructure.5 CSRIC III also recommended that the FCC encourage ISPs to implement source-address filtering topreventattackersfromspoofingIPaddressestolaunchDDoSattacks. Specifically,CSRIC recommended that the FCC encourage implementation of the following best current practices (BCPs) to mitigate this risk:6 1. 1) BCP 38/RFC 2827 – Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing;7 and 2. 2) BCP 84/RFC 3704 – Ingress Filtering for Multi-homed Networks.8 All CSRIC best practices are available on the Commission’s website in a searchable database.9 Since CSRIC III adopted these important recommendations, stakeholders have not yet provided the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) information regarding their implementation that is sufficient for a meaningful understanding of either their effectiveness or lessons learned from implementation. Meanwhile, the vulnerabilities these recommendations were intended to address continue to be exploited.10 For example, recent DDoS attacks of unprecedented scale11 add to the urgency of ISPs’ implementation of CSRIC recommendations or of alternative approaches that ISPs believe are superior to the CSRIC recommendations. Request for Comment By this Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment from ISPs, the Internet community, consumer organizations, and the broader public on the implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations and/or alternatives that stakeholders have developed since the time of the CSRIC’s original work to address these challenges. The purpose of this Public Notice is to promote a robust, stakeholder-driven discourse drawing on broad perspectives from throughout the cyber ecosystem to provide the communications sector and the Commission new information, insights and situational awareness regarding innovative solutions to these [page1image21240] [page1image21408] Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 [page1image22856] News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 particular cyber risks. To the extent that companies or stakeholders may prefer that their submissions remain confidential, we intend to protect the confidentiality of submissions according to the requests and consistent with FCC rules, as described below. This inquiry is part of the Commission’s effort to develop effective and proactive private sector-driven cyber risk management;12 in particular, it complements and supports ongoing work in CSRIC IV to create measurable, accountable cyber assurances across a wide variety of IP-based communications technologies and services.13 The Bureau seeks public comment on the implementation status and effectiveness of these voluntary recommendations, or alternatives, by ISPs and other members of the Internet community. We are particularly interested in comment on the following questions as they relate to the four broad areas of CSRIC’s previous best practices and recommendations cited above: 1. What progress have stakeholders made in implementing the recommendations? 2. What barriers have stakeholders encountered in implementing the recommendations? 3. What significant success stories or breakthroughs have been achieved in implementing the recommendations? 4. What are stakeholders’ views and/or plans for full implementation of the recommendations? 5. How effective are the recommendations at mitigating cyber risk when they have been implemented? Given the experiences gained in the past two years, are there alternatives to full implementation that could be more effective than full implementation at mitigating cyber risk risks posed by botnets, DNS vulnerabilities, routing infrastructure vulnerabilities, and source address spoofing? On what basis do stakeholders believe that these alternatives are more effective than the CSRIC III recommendations? Do stakeholders undertake qualitative or quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of these various approaches, or both? Comment Submission Interested parties are invited to comment by September 26, 2014. Please submit comments or meeting requests by email directly to the Associate Bureau Chief for Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability, Jeffery Goldthorp, at jeffery.goldthorp at fcc.gov, with a copy to the Deputy Chief of the Bureau’s Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Lauren Kravetz, at lauren.kravetz at fcc.gov. Requests for confidential treatment of information submitted should follow the procedures set forth in section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules, under which all submissions with an appropriate request for confidential treatment will be treated as presumptively confidential pending a ruling on the request. Additionally, upon request and on a case-by-case basis, the Bureau may accommodate classified comment submissions or discussions. Alternatively, those who desire to submit comments in hard copy only should submit an original and one copy of each set of comments. Hard copy comments can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All such submissions should be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission and reference DA 14-1066. *  All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper submissions for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Delivery hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. *  Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 2  U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504 at fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). For further information, contact Jeffery Goldthorp, at jeffery.goldthorp at fcc.gov or (202) 418- 1096 or Lauren Kravetz, at lauren.kravetz at fcc.gov or (202) 418-7944. – FCC – 1 CSRIC is a federal advisory committee composed of leaders from the private sector, academia, engineering, consumer/community/non-profit organizations, and government partners from tribal, state, local and federal agencies. See FCC Encyclopedia, Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council III, http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-iii. 2 See CSRIC III FINAL REPORTS, WORKING GROUPS 5, 6, 7, available at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-iii. 3 See AT&T Public Policy Blog: Cybersecurity and the FCC’s CSRIC Recommendations (March 22, 2012), available at http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-and-the-fccs-csric-recommendations/; CenturyLink Public Policy Blog: CenturyLink Takes Cybersecurity Seriously (April 2, 2012), available at http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/2012/04/centurylink-takes-cybersecurity-seriously/; and Comcast Voices: Comcast Applauds Work of the FCC’s CSRIC on Online Security and Safety (March 22, 2012), available at http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-applauds-work-of-the-fccs-csric-on-online-security-and- safety. 4 In a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, an attacker uses multiple computers to prevent legitimate users from accessing information or services by sending large amounts of data to a website or spam to particular e-mail addresses. See Security Tip (ST04-015), Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks, US-CERT, (Feb. 06, 2013), http://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/tips/ST04-015. Source-address spoofing may lead to “attacks where the unreachability of the source can be exploited” by attackers who transmit packets that appear to come from a victim’s IP address. See CSRIC III WORKING GROUP 4 FINAL REPORT at 18 (March 2013), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC_III_WG4_Report_March_%202013.pdf (CSRIC III WG4 REPORT). 5 See News Release: FCC Advisory Committee Adopts Recommendations to Minimize Three Major Cyber Threats, Including an Anti-Bot Code of Conduct, IP Route Hijacking Industry Framework and Secure DNS Best Practices, (March 22, 2012), available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/csric-adopts-recs-minimize-three-major-cyber-threats. 6 CSRIC III WG4 REPORT at 20. 7 See P. FERGUSON & D. SENIE, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE 38, NETWORK INGRESS FILTERING: DEFEATING DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS WHICH EMPLOY IP SOURCE ADDRESS SPOOFING (2000), available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38. 8 See F. BAKER AND P. SAVOLA, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE 84, INGRESS FILTERING FOR MULTIHOMED NETWORKS, (2004), available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp84. 9 See CSRIC Best Practices, FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, https://www.fcc.gov/nors/outage/bestpractice/BestPractice.cfm. 10 See Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection, RENESYS BLOG, Nov. 19, 2013, available at http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/. According to an Internet security firm that investigated the attack, victims included financial institutions, governments, and network service providers in the United States, South Korea, Germany, and several other countries. Id. See also Nicole Perlroth, In Cyberattacks on Banks, Evidence of a New Weapon, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Oct. 5, 2012, available at http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/in-cyberattacks-on-banks-evidence-of-a-new-weapon/. See also Mathew 3 J. Schwartz, Bank DDoS Attacks Resume: Wells Fargo Confirms Disruptions, INFORMATION WEEK, March 27, 2013, available at http://www.informationweek.com/attacks/bank-ddos-attacks-resume-wells-fargo-confirms- disruptions/d/d-id/1109271?. 11 In a Reflective DNS Amplification DDoS attack, an attacker sends multiple requests to multiple open DNS resolvers pretending that they are coming from a victim’s IP address. The open DNS resolvers then reply to the victim’s IP address with larger packets thus amplifying the attack size. See David Piscitello, Anatomy of a DNS DDoS Amplification Attack, WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., http://www.watchguard.com/infocenter/editorial/41649.asp. See also John Leyden, Biggest DDoS Attack in History Hammers Spamhaus, THE REGISTER (March 27, 2013), http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/27/spamhaus_ddos_megaflood/; John Markoff and Nicole Perlroth, Firm Is Accused of Sending Spam, and Fight Jams Internet, N.Y. TIMES, (March 26, 2013), See also Mathew J. Schwartz, DDoS Attack Hits 400 Gbit/s, Breaks Record, INFORMATION WEEK (Feb. 11, 2014), available at http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks-and-breaches/ddos-attack-hits-400-gbit-s-breaks-record/d/d- id/1113787. 12 See remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to the American Enterprise Institute, June 12, 2014 available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-american-enterprise-institute-washington-dc. Chairman Wheeler stated that “the pace of innovation on the Internet is much, much faster than the pace of a notice-and-comment rulemaking” and challenged communications providers to create a “new paradigm” of proactive, measurable, accountable, business-driven cyber risk management. He cited the “important foundational work” in cybersecurity from CSRIC III that is the subject of this Public Notice and announced that “in the coming weeks, we will be seeking information to measure the implementation and impact of these industry-defined best practices.” 13 See Remarks of Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Chief, Rear Admiral (Ret.) David Simpson to CSRIC IV Public Meeting, June 18, 2014, available at http://www.fcc.gov/events/communications-security- reliability-and-interoperability-council-iv-meeting-1. Admiral Simpson’s remarks reiterated Chairman Wheeler’s call for a “‘new paradigm’ of proactive, measurable, accountable, business-driven risk management for communications security and reliability” and further described the “new paradigm” as “a substitute for traditional regulation that is more dynamic than complying with rules and more effective than blindly trusting the market. Under this new approach, businesses would step up and take responsibility for determining how to manage their risk in a more transparent and measurable way that promotes market accountability for cyber risk reduction. The traditional regulatory approach was that the FCC would propose a rule, and, after taking in your comments, tell you what you have to do – and, then, we would measure whether or not you are doing what we told you to do. The ‘new paradigm’ approach is different, and it is more challenging, because if it is going to succeed, it will rely primarily on your action. This is the case both in developing best practices and risk management processes in the first place, and then in following through with meaningful, measurable, demonstrable implementation.” -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2D634814-B60E-4CF6-A5F3-B24529C7A2CC.png Type: image/png Size: 57251 bytes Desc: 2D634814-B60E-4CF6-A5F3-B24529C7A2CC.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DE2C801B-FCF5-439A-B81F-3195E45E794D.png Type: image/png Size: 3149 bytes Desc: DE2C801B-FCF5-439A-B81F-3195E45E794D.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0001.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4AF0ED25-26BA-4FCA-AD0E-2FDBBD9CFCB4.png Type: image/png Size: 2976 bytes Desc: 4AF0ED25-26BA-4FCA-AD0E-2FDBBD9CFCB4.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0002.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BE0C065A-9F17-4F2B-8402-6B9A4F88AF10.png Type: image/png Size: 2755 bytes Desc: BE0C065A-9F17-4F2B-8402-6B9A4F88AF10.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0003.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: B96AFCA6-6010-4BBE-94B4-9EBDD549AF66.png Type: image/png Size: 2737 bytes Desc: B96AFCA6-6010-4BBE-94B4-9EBDD549AF66.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0004.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: C3CA304C-69A1-4A73-B697-BA6C50606455.png Type: image/png Size: 2738 bytes Desc: C3CA304C-69A1-4A73-B697-BA6C50606455.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0005.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2398C925-5BAC-4EC0-BFA7-C3D15621AC55.png Type: image/png Size: 2735 bytes Desc: 2398C925-5BAC-4EC0-BFA7-C3D15621AC55.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0006.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 9E3E7899-9758-46E8-B4D3-4241BDEC0619.png Type: image/png Size: 2736 bytes Desc: 9E3E7899-9758-46E8-B4D3-4241BDEC0619.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0007.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: E3AA33A1-F877-413D-A9F8-0F1E49A2F035.png Type: image/png Size: 2737 bytes Desc: E3AA33A1-F877-413D-A9F8-0F1E49A2F035.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0008.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BBDACF4C-04F6-47BF-BC42-1A329F738D43.png Type: image/png Size: 2738 bytes Desc: BBDACF4C-04F6-47BF-BC42-1A329F738D43.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0009.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DBCEB442-A946-43ED-843E-1D61D6D3DBAA.png Type: image/png Size: 2736 bytes Desc: DBCEB442-A946-43ED-843E-1D61D6D3DBAA.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0010.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0E199467-6E2D-41F6-B8C6-46EE993B53D2.png Type: image/png Size: 2750 bytes Desc: 0E199467-6E2D-41F6-B8C6-46EE993B53D2.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0011.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 19572CF5-D772-4DA1-AFD7-4DD9EFF48F81.png Type: image/png Size: 2746 bytes Desc: 19572CF5-D772-4DA1-AFD7-4DD9EFF48F81.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0012.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2B559E9B-3971-4C53-A2CB-C0CDDBB403D8.png Type: image/png Size: 2750 bytes Desc: 2B559E9B-3971-4C53-A2CB-C0CDDBB403D8.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0013.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 683615CA-BC6E-4025-B943-3A11416BA681.png Type: image/png Size: 2750 bytes Desc: 683615CA-BC6E-4025-B943-3A11416BA681.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0014.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4CC3C5EB-C5D6-419A-B6F6-3821CEFA6C83.png Type: image/png Size: 2735 bytes Desc: 4CC3C5EB-C5D6-419A-B6F6-3821CEFA6C83.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0015.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 396130BF-124A-4C9D-AD3A-74476BB0337C.png Type: image/png Size: 2748 bytes Desc: 396130BF-124A-4C9D-AD3A-74476BB0337C.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0016.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8D50868D-4A65-4C07-BE5F-BC90852D2A9D.png Type: image/png Size: 2748 bytes Desc: 8D50868D-4A65-4C07-BE5F-BC90852D2A9D.png URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/0de775e1/attachment-0017.png> From richard at bennett.com Sun Jul 27 20:26:16 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:26:16 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes an organization. Groups like Free Press are arguably astroturf because of their funding and collaboration with commercial interests, but even if you buy the blogger's claim that AEI is taking orders from Comcast (which it isn't), it doesn't pretend to be speaking for the grassroots. After 76 years in operation, people engaged in public policy have a very clear idea of the values that AEI stands for, and the organization goes to great lengths to firewall fundraising from scholarship. AEI's management grades itself in part on being fired by donors, in part; this is actually a goal. The thing I most like about AEI is that it doesn't take official positions and leaves scholars the freedom to make up their own minds and to disagree with each other. Although we do tend to be skeptical of Internet regulation, we're certainly not of one mind about what needs to be regulated and who should do it. AEI is a real think thank, not an advocacy organization pretending to be a think tank. The article is riddled with factual errors that I've asked Esquire to correct, but it has declined, just as it declined to make proper corrections to the blogger's previous story alleging the FCC had censored 500,000 signatures from a petition in support of Title II. See: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality?fb_comment_id=fbc_734581913271304_735710019825160_735710019825160#f35206a395cd434 The blogger came to my attention when he was criticized on Twitter by journalists who support net neutrality for that shoddy piece of sensationalism; see the dialog around this tweet: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/489212137773215744 The net neutrality debate astonishes me because it rehashes arguments I first heard when writing the IEEE 802.3 1BASE5 standard (the one that replaced coaxial cable Ethernet with today's scalable hub and spoke system) in 1984. Even then some people argued that a passive bus was more "democratic" than an active hub/switch despite its evident drawbacks in terms of cable cost, reliability, manageability, scalability, and media independence. Others argued that all networking problems can be resolved by throwing bandwidth at them and that all QoS is evil, etc. These talking points really haven't changed. The demonization of Comcast is especially peculiar because it's the only ISP in the US still bound by the FCC's 2010 Open Internet order. It agreed to abide by those regulations even if they were struck down by the courts, which they were in January. What happens with the current Open Internet proceeding doesn't have any bearing on Comcast until its merger obligations expire, and its proposed merger with TWC would extend them to a wider footprint and reset the clock on their expiration. Anyhow, the blogger did spell my name right, to there's that. RB On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > Provided without comment: > > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality > > Drive Slow, > Paul Wall -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 27 22:02:13 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:02:13 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <53D54D3F.6010806@paradoxnetworks.net> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> <53D54D3F.6010806@paradoxnetworks.net> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pmoBhhC2wgZFG0T5Y6qqBNEmd7i4ZwiH7+RoDFH7p-mw@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jack Bates <jbates at paradoxnetworks.net> wrote: > On 7/27/2014 12:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > >> You wouldn't like it here in the Bay Area. It's horrible, there's >> pollution all the time, the traffic is terrible, there's no reasonable >> public transportation, there's no late-night eateries for when you finish >> that maintenance window at 2am. You definitely don't want to live here. :D >> > > Well, definitely not. I'll stick to my ranch in rural Oklahoma. Since I > was young, I've always wanted to have a high speed connection to a house in > the middle of nowhere. Originally, I liked the mountain ranges my great > grandmother used to live on. These days, I'm happy with my crop fields and > trees, even if it is a bit flat. Turns out, it's easier to bury fiber when > you don't have to go through a mountain. :) > > I know I'm not alone in my duality; the need to balance my geek and my > need for nature. It generally does hurt the ability to drive into an office > daily, though. Then again, it's over a mile as the crow flies to my nearest > neighbor. Still working on a good wireless repeater system to get me from > the house to a good resting place in the forest. Trees and wifi not > friendly. lol > > Jack > > I wrestled with that duality myself, and finally solved it by buying 10 acres of land about 12 miles from company HQ, so I can be in the office as needed, but still relax under the gentle sound of the wind through the pine trees, watching the birds wheeling back and forth on the wind down in the canyon below. Downside is I haven't solved the high speed internet access question yet; that's still on the to-do list for the property. :/ Turns out high-speed internet is hard to come by in the Silicon Valley area...but that's a topic for another thread. Matt From mpetach at netflight.com Sun Jul 27 22:04:31 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:04:31 -0700 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <000101cfa9cf$d5fd5eb0$81f81c10$@chipps.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> <53D54D3F.6010806@paradoxnetworks.net> <000101cfa9cf$d5fd5eb0$81f81c10$@chipps.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qQZkZArbz6UgnLwrbqEQmp4biFLZftPH4_qoeovmwGTg@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D. <chipps at chipps.com > wrote: > Use this: > > > http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20140512-drone-offers-wi-fi-signal.ece > > Combine that with Google's helium balloon idea, and you end up with a positionable wifi platform that can stay aloft for days... hmmm... Nah, already have too much on my plate. but the idea is intriguing. Matt > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jack Bates > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:05 PM > To: Matthew Petach; Owen DeLong > Cc: NANOG (nanog at nanog.org) > Subject: Re: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins > > On 7/27/2014 12:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > You wouldn't like it here in the Bay Area. It's horrible, there's > > pollution all the time, the traffic is terrible, there's no reasonable > > public transportation, there's no late-night eateries for when you > > finish that maintenance window at 2am. You definitely don't want to > > live here. :D > > Well, definitely not. I'll stick to my ranch in rural Oklahoma. Since I > was young, I've always wanted to have a high speed connection to a house in > the middle of nowhere. Originally, I liked the mountain ranges my great > grandmother used to live on. These days, I'm happy with my crop fields and > trees, even if it is a bit flat. Turns out, it's easier to bury fiber when > you don't have to go through a mountain. :) > > I know I'm not alone in my duality; the need to balance my geek and my > need for nature. It generally does hurt the ability to drive into an office > daily, though. Then again, it's over a mile as the crow flies to my nearest > neighbor. Still working on a good wireless repeater system to get me from > the house to a good resting place in the forest. Trees and wifi not > friendly. lol > > Jack > > > From dorian at blackrose.org Sun Jul 27 22:41:38 2014 From: dorian at blackrose.org (Dorian Kim) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:41:38 -0400 Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fb616ae865243a0b867cb2197fe7c0f@KWMAIL.local.kw-corp.com> <CAP-guGUSKJZD9x8Q=7bcR2SaKDFof19UMgZF9nOFbRRWnkyxDA@mail.gmail.com> <F536A2A0-8EB9-49E5-9306-5F7D804024A4@delong.com> <CAP-guGVVTgfn91sW+X=+0TvJZFpze9NSTYyvz=F+MCmd=x9vng@mail.gmail.com> <D80B6CFE-D5D2-424E-8CF6-8EEDF5A8FC15@delong.com> <CAEmG1=r6ruobezQOMAcf5nsh+41S1pg360h9FHaGV_ijyUTcOA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06B82E5C-E32A-4E28-90E7-CD8DFEEFAC81@blackrose.org> On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:41 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote: > Telecommuting can work out amazingly well, > for the right people. But it takes dedication > and focus, and a relentless willingness to > be accessible to your coworkers. It also takes an organization committed to it as well. -dorian From richard at bennett.com Sun Jul 27 22:54:24 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:54:24 -0700 Subject: Net Neutrality... In-Reply-To: <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> References: <CAEmG1=pn20Ni1bH671cgViB_1Yq-dADWHBS1MSm5+L34xvjQmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ox+_1Rsr9tSkKi-azB4yJDwzuzmcrPRNS5M4SicbyFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk0N3MPxCtcLXY5-zgh9nt-WN5VYPMNaS5iUSnMD1ZQxzg@mail.gmail.com> <53C1A3F2.6050409@meetinghouse.net> <20140712211557.5849234.83970.28378@gmail.com> <53C1B48C.1010509@meetinghouse.net> <m28uny2j7i.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1EDFD.8040804@meetinghouse.net> <m238e62d4j.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C1F3DB.5050805@meetinghouse.net> <m2vbr20w3c.wl%randy@psg.com> <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net> <43FD3CC0-A628-41D8-9C59-896F7A63703A@istaff.org> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B4B54BF4ED@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net> <33F325A4-B7C8-4C34-AADB-52B42F1F28D8@karoshi.com> <e880c3429a2f1f1b55d109eede1ea4a5@amsterdam-2.nl.eu.relayedge.net> <CALFTrnOJzmzuCL-D0sMZ6J0oqXZBzLsVBanDBzihY047bdqUpQ@mail.gmail.com> <21445.28865.704104.861831@world.std.com> <85566CD4-33BE-4023-B59F-C8C89D0AF718@cisco.com> Message-ID: <53D58320.5040305@bennett.com> Minor nit: McDowell is a former two term commissioner, but was not a chairman. He is, however, a real standout in terms of understanding the Internet and has many of the most coherent comments of any commissioner since his appointment. He was a leader in the campaign to push back the attempts of the ITU to establish sovereignty over interconnection and to apply telecom tariffs to the Internet. It's worth noting that there was a time when Internet policy at the national level was not the ideological exercise that it has become. There was very little difference between Clinton's last FCC chairman (Kennard) and Bush 43's first chairman (Powell) on the general approach of the federal government to the Internet. Powell was, after all, the chairman who first articulated "Internet Freedom" goals in his famous "Four Freedoms" speech in Boulder in 2004; see: http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V3I1/JTHTLv3i1_Powell.PDF It's a shame that people can't discuss principles of network policy today without first signing a loyalty oath to one of the political parties. It seems to me that Kennard, Powell, Wheeler, McDowell, and current commissioner Pai have all articulated great ideas about Internet policy that stand on their own without regard to political affiliations. RB On 7/16/14, 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > Relevant article by former FCC Chair > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From joly at punkcast.com Mon Jul 28 00:07:09 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:07:09 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> Now, this is astroturfing. http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" > allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what > the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes an > organization. > > Groups like Free Press are arguably astroturf because of their funding and > collaboration with commercial interests, but even if you buy the blogger's > claim that AEI is taking orders from Comcast (which it isn't), it doesn't > pretend to be speaking for the grassroots. After 76 years in operation, > people engaged in public policy have a very clear idea of the values that > AEI stands for, and the organization goes to great lengths to firewall > fundraising from scholarship. AEI's management grades itself in part on > being fired by donors, in part; this is actually a goal. > > The thing I most like about AEI is that it doesn't take official > positions and leaves scholars the freedom to make up their own minds and to > disagree with each other. Although we do tend to be skeptical of Internet > regulation, we're certainly not of one mind about what needs to be > regulated and who should do it. AEI is a real think thank, not an advocacy > organization pretending to be a think tank. > > The article is riddled with factual errors that I've asked Esquire to > correct, but it has declined, just as it declined to make proper > corrections to the blogger's previous story alleging the FCC had censored > 500,000 signatures from a petition in support of Title II. See: > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net- > neutrality?fb_comment_id=fbc_734581913271304_735710019825160_ > 735710019825160#f35206a395cd434 > > The blogger came to my attention when he was criticized on Twitter by > journalists who support net neutrality for that shoddy piece of > sensationalism; see the dialog around this tweet: https://twitter.com/ > oneunderscore__/status/489212137773215744 > > The net neutrality debate astonishes me because it rehashes arguments I > first heard when writing the IEEE 802.3 1BASE5 standard (the one that > replaced coaxial cable Ethernet with today's scalable hub and spoke system) > in 1984. Even then some people argued that a passive bus was more > "democratic" than an active hub/switch despite its evident drawbacks in > terms of cable cost, reliability, manageability, scalability, and media > independence. Others argued that all networking problems can be resolved by > throwing bandwidth at them and that all QoS is evil, etc. These talking > points really haven't changed. > > The demonization of Comcast is especially peculiar because it's the only > ISP in the US still bound by the FCC's 2010 Open Internet order. It agreed > to abide by those regulations even if they were struck down by the courts, > which they were in January. What happens with the current Open Internet > proceeding doesn't have any bearing on Comcast until its merger obligations > expire, and its proposed merger with TWC would extend them to a wider > footprint and reset the clock on their expiration. > > Anyhow, the blogger did spell my name right, to there's that. > > RB > > > On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > >> Provided without comment: >> >> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality >> >> Drive Slow, >> Paul Wall >> > > -- > Richard Bennett > Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute > Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy > Editor, High Tech Forum > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 00:28:08 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:28:08 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising networks. Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has reported <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones version of their service without charging customers for the data. "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia." http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ Internet Freedom? Not so much. RB On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Now, this is astroturfing. > > http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com > <mailto:richard at bennett.com>> wrote: > > This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" > allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding > of what the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by > definition; it takes an organization. > > Groups like Free Press are arguably astroturf because of their > funding and collaboration with commercial interests, but even if > you buy the blogger's claim that AEI is taking orders from Comcast > (which it isn't), it doesn't pretend to be speaking for the > grassroots. After 76 years in operation, people engaged in public > policy have a very clear idea of the values that AEI stands for, > and the organization goes to great lengths to firewall fundraising > from scholarship. AEI's management grades itself in part on being > fired by donors, in part; this is actually a goal. > > The thing I most like about AEI is that it doesn't take official > positions and leaves scholars the freedom to make up their own > minds and to disagree with each other. Although we do tend to be > skeptical of Internet regulation, we're certainly not of one mind > about what needs to be regulated and who should do it. AEI is a > real think thank, not an advocacy organization pretending to be a > think tank. > > The article is riddled with factual errors that I've asked Esquire > to correct, but it has declined, just as it declined to make > proper corrections to the blogger's previous story alleging the > FCC had censored 500,000 signatures from a petition in support of > Title II. See: > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality?fb_comment_id=fbc_734581913271304_735710019825160_735710019825160#f35206a395cd434 > > The blogger came to my attention when he was criticized on Twitter > by journalists who support net neutrality for that shoddy piece of > sensationalism; see the dialog around this tweet: > https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/489212137773215744 > > The net neutrality debate astonishes me because it rehashes > arguments I first heard when writing the IEEE 802.3 1BASE5 > standard (the one that replaced coaxial cable Ethernet with > today's scalable hub and spoke system) in 1984. Even then some > people argued that a passive bus was more "democratic" than an > active hub/switch despite its evident drawbacks in terms of cable > cost, reliability, manageability, scalability, and media > independence. Others argued that all networking problems can be > resolved by throwing bandwidth at them and that all QoS is evil, > etc. These talking points really haven't changed. > > The demonization of Comcast is especially peculiar because it's > the only ISP in the US still bound by the FCC's 2010 Open Internet > order. It agreed to abide by those regulations even if they were > struck down by the courts, which they were in January. What > happens with the current Open Internet proceeding doesn't have any > bearing on Comcast until its merger obligations expire, and its > proposed merger with TWC would extend them to a wider footprint > and reset the clock on their expiration. > > Anyhow, the blogger did spell my name right, to there's that. > > RB > > > On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > > Provided without comment: > > http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality > > Drive Slow, > Paul Wall > > > -- > Richard Bennett > Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute > Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy > Editor, High Tech Forum > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From goemon at anime.net Mon Jul 28 00:39:27 2014 From: goemon at anime.net (goemon at anime.net) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407271738300.29848@sasami.anime.net> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Richard Bennett wrote: > This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" allegation > is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what the term means: > individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes an organization. Individuals can be paid shills though. -Dan From sean at donelan.com Mon Jul 28 01:14:41 2014 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins In-Reply-To: <20140726153414.192C8857@m0005299.ppops.net> References: <20140726153414.192C8857@m0005299.ppops.net> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1407272037220.15872@cnex.qbaryna.pbz> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014, Scott Weeks wrote: > "Annual Mean Wage of Network and Computer Systems > Administrators by State, May 2013" > > is surprising, though. The numbers are much lower than > I would expect. As always, the survey definitions (and footnotes) are important. The survey shows the relative relationship better than the absolute numbers. Of course, there are exceptions. I expect people following NANOG are more likely senior Computer Network Architects, Computer and Information Systems Managers, or Computer and Information Research Scientists rather than specialists or administrators. They are also likely to have compensation packages in addition to wages. Companies may provide free lunches and dinners to encourage employees to stay at the office longer hours. Tech venture capital firms often want their investments close by Sand Hill Road, not in the mid-west fly over country. Large multi-national firms are sometimes more used to a disperse workforce than a small startup firm. Every situation is different. It all depends on what you are looking for, and consider important. From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 01:31:52 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:31:52 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407271738300.29848@sasami.anime.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1407271738300.29848@sasami.anime.net> Message-ID: <53D5A808.6020605@bennett.com> I prefer the term "poopy head" because it's so much more sophisticated. RB On 7/27/14, 5:39 PM, goemon at anime.net wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Richard Bennett wrote: >> This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" >> allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of >> what the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; >> it takes an organization. > > Individuals can be paid shills though. > > -Dan -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From joly at punkcast.com Mon Jul 28 02:08:13 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:08:13 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out against NN at the last minute. The EFF did recently address the issue. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide <quote> However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for decades to come. Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have access to anything else, Facebook *is* the Internet. On such an Internet, the task of filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes so much easier, and the potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers to roll out their own innovative online services using local languages and content is severely curtailed. Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen the digital divide. But do you know what most <http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/more-competition-essential-for-future-of-mobile-innovation.htm> stakeholders <http://a4ai.org/policy-and-regulatory-best-practices/> agree <http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/27.aspx> is a better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition—which we can foster through rules that reduce the power of telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules against clearly impermissible practices like website blocking. </quote> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations > but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge that admit > to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long > history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that net > neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money from the > pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of super-heavy > Internet users and some of the richest and most profitable companies in > America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising > networks. > > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when that > nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who provided free > broadband starter plans that allowed access to Facebook and Wikipedia were > required to charge the poor: > > "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of > neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put an end to > the practice, widespread in developing countries > <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, > of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has > reported > <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, > companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals > <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> > with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones version of > their service without charging customers for the data. > > "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee > <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> > from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. > Internet giants like it because it encourages use of their services in > places where consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it > because Facebook or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider > internet, introducing users to the wonders of the web and encouraging them > to explore further afield—and to pay for data. And it’s not just commercial > services that use the practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter > of zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia." > > http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ > > Internet Freedom? Not so much. > > RB > > > > On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Now, this is astroturfing. > > > http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Mon Jul 28 02:34:08 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:34:08 +1000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> Message-ID: <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that > net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money > from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of > super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most > profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line > retailers, and advertising networks. I've got to say, this is the first time I've heard Verizon and Comcast described as "poor and disadvantaged". > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when > that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who > provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to > Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: [...] > Internet Freedom? Not so much. I totally agree. You can't have Internet Freedom when some of the richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising networks, are paying to have eyeballs locked into their services. Far better that users be given an opportunity to browse the Internet free of restriction, by providing reasonable cost services through robust and healthy competition. Or is that perhaps not what you meant? - Matt From ops.lists at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 02:46:36 2014 From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:16:36 +0530 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <CAArzuosrUMwm1+ZZQjpFN4gira2vzPBJuROeoJkKh3W=ywBMPw@mail.gmail.com> I think he meant the actual poor people that broadband subsidies and free walled garden internet to access only fb and Wikipedia are supposed to benefit, but I could be wrong On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that > > net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money > > from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of > > super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most > > profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line > > retailers, and advertising networks. > > I've got to say, this is the first time I've heard Verizon and Comcast > described as "poor and disadvantaged". > > > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when > > that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who > > provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to > > Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: > > [...] > > > Internet Freedom? Not so much. > > I totally agree. You can't have Internet Freedom when some of the richest > and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line > retailers, and advertising networks, are paying to have eyeballs locked > into > their services. Far better that users be given an opportunity to browse > the > Internet free of restriction, by providing reasonable cost services through > robust and healthy competition. > > Or is that perhaps not what you meant? > > - Matt > > From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Mon Jul 28 03:52:24 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:52:24 +1000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAArzuosrUMwm1+ZZQjpFN4gira2vzPBJuROeoJkKh3W=ywBMPw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org> <CAArzuosrUMwm1+ZZQjpFN4gira2vzPBJuROeoJkKh3W=ywBMPw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140728035224.GK14709@hezmatt.org> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that > > > net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money > > > from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of > > > super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most > > > profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line > > > retailers, and advertising networks. > > > > I've got to say, this is the first time I've heard Verizon and Comcast > > described as "poor and disadvantaged". > > > > > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when > > > that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who > > > provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to > > > Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: > > > > [...] > > > > > Internet Freedom? Not so much. > > > > I totally agree. You can't have Internet Freedom when some of the > > richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, > > on-line retailers, and advertising networks, are paying to have eyeballs > > locked into their services. Far better that users be given an > > opportunity to browse the Internet free of restriction, by providing > > reasonable cost services through robust and healthy competition. > > > > Or is that perhaps not what you meant? > > I think he meant the actual poor people that broadband subsidies and free > walled garden internet to access only fb and Wikipedia are supposed to > benefit, but I could be wrong I've got a whopping great big privilege that's possibly obscuring my view, but I fail to see how only providing access to Facebook and Wikipedia is (a) actual *Internet* access, or (b) actually beneficial, in the long run, to anyone other than Facebook and Wikipedia. I suppose it could benefit the (no doubt incumbent) telco which is providing the service, since it makes it much more difficult for competition to flourish. I can't see any lasting benefit to the end user (or should I say "product"?). - Matt From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 03:59:14 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:59:14 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <20140728035224.GK14709@hezmatt.org> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org> <CAArzuosrUMwm1+ZZQjpFN4gira2vzPBJuROeoJkKh3W=ywBMPw@mail.gmail.com> <20140728035224.GK14709@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <53D5CA92.2080202@bennett.com> Maybe it would help if you tried to address the issues in a serious way instead of just trying to be cute. Just a thought... RB On 7/27/14, 8:52 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that >>>> net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money >>>> from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of >>>> super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most >>>> profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line >>>> retailers, and advertising networks. >>> I've got to say, this is the first time I've heard Verizon and Comcast >>> described as "poor and disadvantaged". >>> >>>> Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when >>>> that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who >>>> provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to >>>> Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: >>> [...] >>> >>>> Internet Freedom? Not so much. >>> I totally agree. You can't have Internet Freedom when some of the >>> richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, >>> on-line retailers, and advertising networks, are paying to have eyeballs >>> locked into their services. Far better that users be given an >>> opportunity to browse the Internet free of restriction, by providing >>> reasonable cost services through robust and healthy competition. >>> >>> Or is that perhaps not what you meant? >> I think he meant the actual poor people that broadband subsidies and free >> walled garden internet to access only fb and Wikipedia are supposed to >> benefit, but I could be wrong > I've got a whopping great big privilege that's possibly obscuring my view, > but I fail to see how only providing access to Facebook and Wikipedia is (a) > actual *Internet* access, or (b) actually beneficial, in the long run, to > anyone other than Facebook and Wikipedia. I suppose it could benefit the > (no doubt incumbent) telco which is providing the service, since it makes it > much more difficult for competition to flourish. I can't see any lasting > benefit to the end user (or should I say "product"?). > > - Matt > -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 04:08:17 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:08:17 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" Professor van Schewick is pretty clear about making the users pay for the edge providers in her tome on Internet architecture and innovation. Competition is a wonderful thing where it can work, but it's not a panacea, especially for the poor and for high-cost, rural areas. Communication policy has pretty much always relied on some form of subsidy for these situations, that's the universal service fee we pay on our phone bills. Susan Crawford explicitly complains that American ISPs "gouge the rich" by charging more than the OECD norm for high-speed (50 Mbps and above) service, but she fails to point out that they also charge less than the norm for low-speed (15 Mbps and below) service. I think it's easy to create unintended consequences if you don't look at how specific regulations affect real people, no matter how high-minded and principled they may appear at the surface. RB On 7/27/14, 7:08 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow > doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly > come out against NN at the last minute. > > The EFF did recently address the issue. > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide > > > <quote> > > However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. > Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from > developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of > free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the > cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access > in those countries for decades to come. > > Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or > billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have > access to anything else, Facebook /is/ the Internet. On such an > Internet, the task of filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes > so much easier, and the potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers > to roll out their own innovative online services using local languages > and content is severely curtailed. > > Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen > the digital divide. But do you know whatmost > <http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/more-competition-essential-for-future-of-mobile-innovation.htm>stakeholders > <http://a4ai.org/policy-and-regulatory-best-practices/>agree > <http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/27.aspx>is a > better approach towards conquering the digital divide? > Competition—which we can foster through rules that reduce the power of > telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and > applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where > competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules > against clearly impermissible practices like website blocking. > > </quote> > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com > <mailto:richard at bennett.com>> wrote: > > So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony > organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public > Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are > legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced > that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers > money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the > pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and > most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, > on-line retailers, and advertising networks. > > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when > that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who > provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to > Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: > > "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies > of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put > an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries > <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, > of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz > has reported > <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, > companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike > up deals > <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> > with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones > version of their service without charging customers for the data. > > "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee > <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> > from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are > widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of > their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data > charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a > gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of > the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay > for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the > practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of > zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia." > > http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ > > Internet Freedom? Not so much. > > RB > > > > On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> Now, this is astroturfing. >> >> http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From woody at pch.net Mon Jul 28 04:33:53 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:33:53 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> Message-ID: <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > The essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose? I won’t presume to speak for Netflix, and I won’t presume to provide a canonical definition of “network neutrality.” However, I can say what global prevailing business practice is, since I’ve actually surveyed and quantified it: Each network (regardless of whether they term themselves “eyeball,” “content,” “edge,” or whatever) delivering a packet pays their own way to the IXP of their choice that the other party is present at, each network receiving a packet pays their own way from the IXP of their counterpart’s choice that they’re present at, independently in each direction. Thus, where content networks interconnect with eyeball networks, when they follow the best practice engaged in by 99.73% of all network-pairs, the eyeball network’s customers pay them to deliver traffic to an IXP of their choice and from an IXP of the content network’s choice, while the content network’s customers pay them to deliver traffic to an IXP of their choice and from an IXP of the eyeball network's choice, long in, short out. No money changes hands between the two networks, because no value is exchanged between the two networks. Each network pays their own way, and is in turn paid by their customer. Because they’re each providing value to their customers, not to each other. In 0.27% of cases, the parties aren’t able to see their way to following best practices, and some fraction of those are disputes between content and eyeball networks of the sort that you’re describing. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/ec6adf10/attachment.pgp> From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 28 04:39:50 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:39:50 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> Message-ID: <53D5D416.4000806@meetinghouse.net> Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: >> The essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose? > I won’t presume to speak for Netflix, and I won’t presume to provide a canonical definition of “network neutrality.” However, I can say what global prevailing business practice is, since I’ve actually surveyed and quantified it: > > Each network (regardless of whether they term themselves “eyeball,” “content,” “edge,” or whatever) delivering a packet pays their own way to the IXP of their choice that the other party is present at, each network receiving a packet pays their own way from the IXP of their counterpart’s choice that they’re present at, independently in each direction. Thus, where content networks interconnect with eyeball networks, when they follow the best practice engaged in by 99.73% of all network-pairs, the eyeball network’s customers pay them to deliver traffic to an IXP of their choice and from an IXP of the content network’s choice, while the content network’s customers pay them to deliver traffic to an IXP of their choice and from an IXP of the eyeball network's choice, long in, short out. No money changes hands between the two networks, because no value is exchanged between the two networks. Each network pays their own way, and is in turn paid by their customer. Because they’re each providing value to their customers, not to each other. > > In 0.27% of cases, the parties aren’t able to see their way to following best practices, and some fraction of those are disputes between content and eyeball networks of the sort that you’re describing. > > -Bill > Bill, Can you say more about what you've done to "survey and quantify" prevailing practices? And... given that Netflix is reportedly about 1/3 of Internet traffic these days, and Verizon is huge - how does that come out to .27% of cases (leaving aside other recent disputes like L3-Cogent, and Netflix-Comcast)? Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Mon Jul 28 04:42:33 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:42:33 +1000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5CA92.2080202@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org> <CAArzuosrUMwm1+ZZQjpFN4gira2vzPBJuROeoJkKh3W=ywBMPw@mail.gmail.com> <20140728035224.GK14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5CA92.2080202@bennett.com> Message-ID: <20140728044233.GM14709@hezmatt.org> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 08:59:14PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > Maybe it would help if you tried to address the issues in a serious > way instead of just trying to be cute. I will when you will, "poopy head". - Matt From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Mon Jul 28 04:49:06 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:49:06 +1000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> Message-ID: <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for > the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge > providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the > FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and Cogent. - Matt From woody at pch.net Mon Jul 28 04:56:00 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:56:00 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5D416.4000806@meetinghouse.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> <53D5D416.4000806@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <05890C3D-7A52-40E1-98AF-619B21D96584@pch.net> On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Can you say more about what you've done to "survey and quantify" prevailing practices? https://www.pch.net/resources/papers//peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf We’ll do another one in the run-up to the next OECD carrier interconnection paper. > Given that Netflix is reportedly about 1/3 of Internet traffic these days, and Verizon is huge - how does that come out to .27% of cases? Netflix/Verizon would be 0.0007% of cases, if it’s represented in the dataset. The survey was of interconnection norms, not of hugeness. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140727/70ffe907/attachment.pgp> From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 05:53:51 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:53:51 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge." This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation." Very wow. RB On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: >> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for >> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge >> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the >> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" > In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get > their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the > Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and > Cogent. > > - Matt > -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 28 06:15:33 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:15:33 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> Message-ID: <53D5EA85.6080003@meetinghouse.net> Now that's more than a little disingenuous. Until a week or so ago, pretty much all of the FIOS plans were asynchronous - a 15meg down/5meg up network was not designed for web browsing and email. For that matter, Verizon is currently billing their lowest speed FIOS plan, at 50up/50down as "Stream 2 HD videos simultaneously" and for only $20/mo. more you can "stream up to 7 HD videos simultaneously" Miles Fidelman Richard Bennett wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: > > http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html > > > " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a > toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, > or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the > services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, > they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge." > > This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this > is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions > change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of > web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more > traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my > innovation." > > Very wow. > > RB > > > On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for >>> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge >>> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the >>> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" >> In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way >> to get >> their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to >> use the >> Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and >> Cogent. >> >> - Matt >> > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jul 28 06:18:52 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:18:52 +0200 Subject: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer In-Reply-To: <53C7A46D.3090405@foobar.org> References: <CAJ0+aXbNAj63WFjePB4DaK3OX8RkVAgnuFwdUbEw98A8jkwPKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CFE95FC7.69BC1%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> <53C7A46D.3090405@foobar.org> Message-ID: <201407280818.56588.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:24:45 PM Nick Hilliard wrote: > there are other drawbacks too: the difference in > convergence time between < 24k prefixes and a full dfz > is usually going to be large although I haven't tested > this on an me3600x yet. Not having to install the routes into FIB (even on software- based platforms) makes a ton of difference. Our testing when using this feature on the ME3600X has shown: 1. The switch will download a full copy of the IPv6 table of 18,282 entries in 1 second. This is from 2x local route reflectors, so no latency. 2. The switch will download a full copy of the IPv4 table of 499,437 entries in 3 minutes, 10 seconds. This is from 2x local route reflectors, so no latency. The IPv4 convergence was consuming between 12% - 30% CPU utilization during the table download. This was on the IPv4 table, given its size. The IPv6 didn't bother the switch in any way. The CPU on the ME3600X is a little slow; we've seen far better IPv4 BGP table download times on meatier CPU's, and the CSR1000v, which runs on servers that kick typical router CPU's into the stone age. > Also these boxes only have 1G > of memory might be a bit tight as the dfz increases. > For sure, it's already not enough on a bunch of other > vanilla ios platforms. Total memory utilized (for 2x full BGPv4 and BGPv6 feeds, and after IOS deducts system memory for itself) came to 370MB. That left 424MB of memory free. Code is 15.4(2)S. Cheers, Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140728/057b4ed5/attachment.pgp> From pauldotwall at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 06:20:39 2014 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 06:20:39 +0000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAHnQ7eKo7_neJW-=V6oJzoFU1VUssyEn+3qgwZ-soZMG3K4v3Q@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: > > http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html You are aware that there are, probably, thousands of eyeball networks doing this right now, right? Drive Slow, Paul Wall From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Mon Jul 28 06:43:00 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:43:00 +1000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> Message-ID: <20140728064300.GP14709@hezmatt.org> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:53:51PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: > > http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html > > " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a > toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or > Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to > deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential > subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their > network without charge." The important phrase there is "requested by ISP residential subscribers". You will see this material again. > This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this > is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the > fashions change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic > demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 > times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not > anticipating my innovation." A more accurate phrasing would be, "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing, while *telling your customers they can stream video*? That's cute, now provision a few more circuits to your upstreams to handle the traffic that you said you could handle, instead of trying to leverage your monopoly position to rent-seek off me." Entrenched monopoly is what this is all about, ultimately. Nobody in Australia (my home town) talks about Net Neutrality. We don't care. We don't *have* to care. Because no ISP over here currently has a sufficiently captive market to permit them to play chicken with a content provider. Any ISP who did, and held their customer base to ransom, would very quickly find themselves losing customers -- at least that segment of the market that used the relevant content provider's services. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing for the ISP -- less traffic, lower costs, better margins... but at least customers would be able to choose. No such luck in the US, where some eye-wateringly high percentage of users have no choice in who provides them a given service. - Matt From bbqroast at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 07:12:11 2014 From: bbqroast at gmail.com (mcfbbqroast .) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:12:11 +1200 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAKJkDEumtwLoeYiWLJtrO8ZpvAtBZJB6PQa62ECeN9XoN3iBTw@mail.gmail.com> Wait, I'm confused? Of the ISPs can't handle 5mbps of traffic when a customer wants to watch TV, why the hell are they selling 100mbps plans!?! Answer that with something other than "because the ISPs more lucrative content business is threatened by Netflix"? Stop trying to hide what this so obviously is. Others: Do you know if Netflix peers with tier 1s (level 3, cogent, etc) or purchases capacity? Bennett: Sorry for the double mail, still getting used to gmail on the Android. Jed Robertson On 28 Jul 2014 17:56, "Richard Bennett" <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: > > http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case- > for-strong-net.html > > " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll > for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or > intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services > and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must > provide sufficient access to their network without charge." > > This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is > the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: > "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web > browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while > I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation." > > Very wow. > > RB > > > On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: >> >>> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for >>> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge >>> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the >>> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" >>> >> In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to >> get >> their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use >> the >> Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and >> Cogent. >> >> - Matt >> >> > -- > Richard Bennett > Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute > Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy > Editor, High Tech Forum > > From pauldotwall at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 12:43:39 2014 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:43:39 +0000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEumtwLoeYiWLJtrO8ZpvAtBZJB6PQa62ECeN9XoN3iBTw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAKJkDEumtwLoeYiWLJtrO8ZpvAtBZJB6PQa62ECeN9XoN3iBTw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAHnQ7eKN-5Lin7Pk8WzQc+LY7P4ZuTfTj6iU3r8O_v_MNCpRng@mail.gmail.com> route-views will confirm that Netflix peer with a number of access providers, including the large ones; press releases related to "OpenConnect" imply that no money is passing hands. You'll note that, in spite of his wordy replies, never once does Richard Bennett disclose who is funding him and AEI. Call it whatever you want, I think "lobbyist" is the best word choice. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:12 AM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast at gmail.com> wrote: > Wait, I'm confused? > > Of the ISPs can't handle 5mbps of traffic when a customer wants to watch > TV, why the hell are they selling 100mbps plans!?! > > Answer that with something other than "because the ISPs more lucrative > content business is threatened by Netflix"? > > Stop trying to hide what this so obviously is. > > Others: > > Do you know if Netflix peers with tier 1s (level 3, cogent, etc) or > purchases capacity? > > Bennett: > > Sorry for the double mail, still getting used to gmail on the Android. > > Jed Robertson > On 28 Jul 2014 17:56, "Richard Bennett" <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > >> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: >> >> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case- >> for-strong-net.html >> >> " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll >> for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or >> intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services >> and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must >> provide sufficient access to their network without charge." >> >> This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is >> the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: >> "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web >> browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while >> I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation." >> >> Very wow. >> >> RB >> >> >> On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for >>>> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge >>>> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the >>>> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" >>>> >>> In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to >>> get >>> their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use >>> the >>> Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and >>> Cogent. >>> >>> - Matt >>> >>> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute >> Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy >> Editor, High Tech Forum >> >> From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 28 12:53:05 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:53:05 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <05890C3D-7A52-40E1-98AF-619B21D96584@pch.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> <53D5D416.4000806@meetinghouse.net> <05890C3D-7A52-40E1-98AF-619B21D96584@pch.net> Message-ID: <53D647B1.2050002@meetinghouse.net> Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> Can you say more about what you've done to "survey and quantify" prevailing practices? > https://www.pch.net/resources/papers//peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf > > We’ll do another one in the run-up to the next OECD carrier interconnection paper. Interesting study. Thanks for the pointer. >> Given that Netflix is reportedly about 1/3 of Internet traffic these days, and Verizon is huge - how does that come out to .27% of cases? > Netflix/Verizon would be 0.0007% of cases, if it’s represented in the dataset. The survey was of interconnection norms, not of hugeness. It is worth noting, though, that not all interconnection are created equal. I wonder how your numbers would come out if you grouped interconnection agreements by amount of traffic exchanged, level of asymmetry, and so forth. And then perhaps by level of competition in the associated markets (do monopoly carriers behave differently than ones where there is a lot of competition?). Just by analogy, the answer to "what kind of protocol traffic dominates the net" (or is "more important") differs considerably if you look at bandwidth vs. transactions (last time I looked, admittedly a little while ago, email still dominates network traffic when you look at transactions; but video clearly eats of most of the bandwidth). Regards, Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jul 28 12:59:40 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:59:40 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAHnQ7eKN-5Lin7Pk8WzQc+LY7P4ZuTfTj6iU3r8O_v_MNCpRng@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAKJkDEumtwLoeYiWLJtrO8ZpvAtBZJB6PQa62ECeN9XoN3iBTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHnQ7eKN-5Lin7Pk8WzQc+LY7P4ZuTfTj6iU3r8O_v_MNCpRng@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D6493C.3040104@meetinghouse.net> Paul WALL wrote: > route-views will confirm that Netflix peer with a number of access > providers, including the large ones; press releases related to > "OpenConnect" imply that no money is passing hands. > > You'll note that, in spite of his wordy replies, never once does > Richard Bennett disclose who is funding him and AEI. Call it whatever > you want, I think "lobbyist" is the best word choice. > > It's pretty well established that AEI is primarily a right-wing, conservative, pro-business think tank - with a mission statement that starts: "The American Enterprise Institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening free enterprise." (http://www.aei.org/about/) AEI policy studies are pretty consistently anti-regulation. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From tkaufman at corp.nac.net Mon Jul 28 15:13:15 2014 From: tkaufman at corp.nac.net (Timothy Kaufman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:13:15 +0000 Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. Message-ID: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> I have been looking into DWDM light meters. The JDSU looks good, but I see other brands out there. Does anyone have some recommendations, things to look out for? Thanks, Tim Kaufman From tkaufman at corp.nac.net Mon Jul 28 15:22:18 2014 From: tkaufman at corp.nac.net (Timothy Kaufman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:22:18 +0000 Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. In-Reply-To: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> References: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> Message-ID: <acd80d59fc94405c8f01d3714bce715b@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> I should elaborate the JDSU OCC-56C looks decent. Also any suggestions on basic OSA's? We have a few spans with both passive and boosted light DWDM. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Kaufman Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:13 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. I have been looking into DWDM light meters. The JDSU looks good, but I see other brands out there. Does anyone have some recommendations, things to look out for? Thanks, Tim Kaufman From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 28 16:28:17 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:28:17 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXGd36LRQS0wCOMRQzpw6-4F34w+NnkEkux+fmS9M8F3w@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote: > However, I can say what global prevailing business practice > is, since I’ve actually surveyed and quantified it: > > Each network [..] pays their own way to the IXP of their > choice that the other party is present at, each network > receiving a packet pays their own way from the IXP of > their counterpart’s choice that they’re present at, > independently in each direction. Hi Bill, I take issue with this claim because: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote: > The survey was of interconnection norms, not of hugeness. And, "Of the total analyzed agreements, [...] 141,512 (99.51%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a written document." As a result, the data set suffers three flaws: 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. 2. The overwhelming majority of the agreements analyzed were handshake agreements but no picture is available of the handshake agreements those same parties rejected outright or, expecting rejection elected not to pursue. That creates a data bias which could mask any number of factors, leaving you no way to determine that the claimed norm bears any resemblance to the results one might expect when proposing peering with a neighbor. 3. The data supports no affirmative statement about the the peering case most relevant to network neutrality: that of a small network seeking to peer with a large one. More to the point, what agreements occur or fail to occur when one network is in a position to strong-arm the other and does this diverge from the general case? That having been said, kudos for the excellent research. As far as objective numbers go, yours are more thorough than any others I've seen. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From woody at pch.net Mon Jul 28 16:36:35 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:36:35 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXGd36LRQS0wCOMRQzpw6-4F34w+NnkEkux+fmS9M8F3w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> <CAP-guGXGd36LRQS0wCOMRQzpw6-4F34w+NnkEkux+fmS9M8F3w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6AFAF602-5E95-4FAC-90C3-1247EA8DF385@pch.net> On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > The data set suffers three flaws: Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly. > 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than easier. > That having been said, kudos for the excellent research. As far as > objective numbers go, yours are more thorough than any others I've > seen. Thank you. We look forward to your participation in the next one! :-) -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140728/21cfa46d/attachment.pgp> From jra at baylink.com Mon Jul 28 16:52:07 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <6AFAF602-5E95-4FAC-90C3-1247EA8DF385@pch.net> Message-ID: <1224072.7357.1406566327449.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> > On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > > The data set suffers three flaws: > > Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly. > > > 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the > > Internet. > > There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but > it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on > the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if > someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive > of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it > requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, > which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering > data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and > representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too > much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is > to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than > easier. I think you're over-specifizing Bill's assertion, Woody. He didn't mean "TCP Flows", I don't think; he was simply -- as I understood him -- talking about the 40,000ft view of connections between pieces of the Internet. I don't expect your dataset to have flow-level data, and I don't think he did either; it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From carlos at race.com Mon Jul 28 16:58:56 2014 From: carlos at race.com (Carlos Alcantar) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:58:56 +0000 Subject: FTTH and DSLAM Access Vendors In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzOb4Z0AwXvnhzBsR=1C8eqv2JNWsMJsoX48S+V_1RUbCA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOb4Z0AwXvnhzBsR=1C8eqv2JNWsMJsoX48S+V_1RUbCA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CFFBCE6C.76E96%carlos@race.com> I don¹t know that getting a comparison of all these vendors will do anything for you as each one will have something that tops each other. What I¹ve always done is put my list together of features that I need to run my business and see where each one of the vendors sits after that. You can typically weed out a good % by that first set of questions. We also will give some points to vendors we already deal with and staff is already familiar with using, as training can be a big % of cost. Carlos Alcantar Race Communications / Race Team Member 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / carlos at race.com / http://www.race.com On 7/24/14, 7:49 PM, "Colton Conor" <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: >I am looking for comparisons between the following FTTH GPON and VDSL2 >access platforms. Has anyone recently compared the capabilities of each of >these platforms? > >Alcatel-Lucent 7360 ISAM >Adtran Total Access 5000 >Calix E7 >Cisco ME4600 >Huawei MA5600T >Zhone MXK > >They all look great on paper, but there has to be some key differences >other than price. Besides the vendors listed above, is there anyone else >in >this market? > From woody at pch.net Mon Jul 28 17:03:47 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:03:47 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <1224072.7357.1406566327449.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <1224072.7357.1406566327449.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <9879DF3F-6F06-47DB-9E13-9CF80198C3ED@pch.net> On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: >>> It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. >> >> Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing. > > He didn't mean "TCP Flows", I don't think; he was simply -- as I > understood him -- talking about the 40,000ft view of connections between > pieces of the Internet. I don't expect your dataset to have flow-level data, and I don't think > he did either. How else do you get a representative measurement of “actual traffic flows on the Internet?” We’ve got adjacency information. Telegeography has hand-waving 40,000 ft. flow estimates in the form of different widths of arrows on a map. But if you want to know how large actual flows of data are between two regions of the Internet, and you can’t actually instrument the whole Internet, you need two things: (1) a broad and representative sampling of flow data, and (2) a complete measurement of a few portions of the network that are represented in the sampled set. That gives you a horizontal and a vertical view, from which you can extrapolate to a whole, or any other part, with some minor assurance of reasonability. If someone has an easier methodology to suggest, that still produces usable results, I’m all ears. > it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having. I thought I’d made that point? -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140728/18969736/attachment.pgp> From dorian at blackrose.org Mon Jul 28 17:04:57 2014 From: dorian at blackrose.org (Dorian Kim) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:04:57 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <6AFAF602-5E95-4FAC-90C3-1247EA8DF385@pch.net> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> <CAP-guGXGd36LRQS0wCOMRQzpw6-4F34w+NnkEkux+fmS9M8F3w@mail.gmail.com> <6AFAF602-5E95-4FAC-90C3-1247EA8DF385@pch.net> Message-ID: <48A52423-90BB-450A-A5DB-CC03725D2A77@blackrose.org> On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: >> The data set suffers three flaws: > > Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly. > >> 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. > > There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than easier. This most likely won’t happen unless it becomes some sort of an international treaty obligation and even then it would end up in courts for a long time. Leaving aside data privacy requirements many carriers have, most companies guard their traffic information rather zealously for some reason. -dorian From mpetach at netflight.com Mon Jul 28 17:36:22 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:36:22 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <48A52423-90BB-450A-A5DB-CC03725D2A77@blackrose.org> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <15E649E6-D873-4FA5-930F-197A7423CD3D@pch.net> <CAP-guGXGd36LRQS0wCOMRQzpw6-4F34w+NnkEkux+fmS9M8F3w@mail.gmail.com> <6AFAF602-5E95-4FAC-90C3-1247EA8DF385@pch.net> <48A52423-90BB-450A-A5DB-CC03725D2A77@blackrose.org> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=pnXTWSDZkMtruQuzHkLqav+YA36M_dLMUw_D0WE9mzvQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Dorian Kim <dorian at blackrose.org> wrote: > > > This most likely won’t happen unless it becomes some sort of an > international treaty obligation and even then it would end up in courts for > a long time. Leaving aside data privacy requirements many carriers have, > most companies guard their traffic information rather zealously for some > reason. > > -dorian > "We'll allow you to keep these connections in place as a legacy favour, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they don't exist; we don't pass routes from it along to others, and neither will you. They get used for internal traffic only." Those types of situations are why traffic flow data tends to be kept very, very secret. Every network has its dark corners, its dirty little secrets that shouldn't see the light of day. It's easy to make sure those aren't drawn on the maps released to the public. It's a lot harder to make sure the presence of those edges doesn't become visible if you export actual flow data. Matt From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 28 17:56:56 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:56:56 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: Yeah, because when I pay UPS on my corporate account to pick up a package in California and deliver it to me in Virginia, the guy at the pickup in California is asking UPS to deliver it for free. Your claim is twisted man. Twisted. I pay Verizon to connect me to Netflix and the rest of the Internet at substantial speed. Netflix demands only that Verizon give me what I paid for. > This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the > beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: There is no "traditional" understanding of net neutrality. The term was co-opted to mean many different things the moment it entered political awareness, before any tradition could develop. > "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? > That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back > and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation." Right, because how could anyone anticipate that more than a handful of folks might want to use 5 or 6 mbps of traffic on a 25mbps flat-rate product for hours at a time. How rude to suggest that an allegedly high speed network designed only to handle the traffic demands of web browsing is little different than that age old confidence scheme, the pig in a poke. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com Mon Jul 28 18:25:17 2014 From: mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:25:17 -0700 Subject: SHDSL / Copper Loop testing Message-ID: <53D6958D.4010506@tiedyenetworks.com> Howdy, I'm looking for reccomendations for a copper-loop test set that can effectively troubleshoot SHDSL. I'm looking for more than 'yup, I got sync' - it would be very helpful to be able to see noise/interference as well as calculate loop length, check bridge taps, and any other kind of metallic testing that would help to identify and isolate loop troubles. Thank you. Mike- From tkaufman at corp.nac.net Mon Jul 28 18:33:25 2014 From: tkaufman at corp.nac.net (Timothy Kaufman) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:33:25 +0000 Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. In-Reply-To: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> References: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> Message-ID: <53266209fb3041f39773a3b2e0afcef1@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> I should elaborate the JDSU OCC-56C looks decent. Also maybe the ODPM-48. Also any suggestions on basic OSA's? We have a few spans with both passive and boosted light DWDM. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Kaufman Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:13 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. I have been looking into DWDM light meters. The JDSU looks good, but I see other brands out there. Does anyone have some recommendations, things to look out for? Thanks, Tim Kaufman From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 18:35:39 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:35:39 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> It's hard to see a revolution when you're in the middle of it. As consumers transition from watching multicast TV on the networks' schedule past time-shifting and on to VoD, the traffic demands on the infrastructure will grow by 25 - 40 times. Similarly, the Internet will shift from a tool for reading web sites and watching occasional cat videos to a system whose main job (from the perspective of traffic) is video streaming. The magnitude of the change will necessarily cause a re-evaluation of the norms for interconnection, aggregation, content placement, and protocol design. I think it's a mistake to approach this transformation in a "nothing to see here, move along" manner. It's reality that packet networks are statistical, especially at the level of aggregation and middle-mile distribution. The Internet's traditional financial model is one in which infrastructure providers make the most serious investments and edge services extract the highest profits. This model may not be the most sustainable one, and it may not be consistent with supporting the upgrades the infrastructure needs for adaptation to this new application. Alternative models - such as Europe's open access regime - fare even worse in this regard than the vertical integration model that's the norm in North America and East Asia. I don't claim to have all the answers here, or even any of them, but I think it's important to keep an open mind and pay attention to what works. I'm also not enthusiastic about relying on government programs to upgrade infrastructure to fiber of some random spec, because the entry of government into this market suppresses investments by independent fiber contractors and doesn't necessarily lead to optimal placement of new fiber routes. The First Net experience is proving that to be the case, I believe. In other words, the Internet that we have today isn't the best of all possible networks, it's just the devil we know. RB On 7/28/14, 10:56 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: >> "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? >> That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back >> and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation." > Right, because how could anyone anticipate that more than a handful of > folks might want to use 5 or 6 mbps of traffic on a 25mbps flat-rate > product for hours at a time. How rude to suggest that an allegedly > high speed network designed only to handle the traffic demands of web > browsing is little different than that age old confidence scheme, the > pig in a poke. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From lyle at lcrcomputer.net Mon Jul 28 18:41:14 2014 From: lyle at lcrcomputer.net (Lyle Giese) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:41:14 -0500 Subject: SHDSL / Copper Loop testing In-Reply-To: <53D6958D.4010506@tiedyenetworks.com> References: <53D6958D.4010506@tiedyenetworks.com> Message-ID: <53D6994A.1030808@lcrcomputer.net> On 7/28/2014 1:25 PM, Mike wrote: > Howdy, > > I'm looking for reccomendations for a copper-loop test set that > can effectively troubleshoot SHDSL. I'm looking for more than 'yup, I > got sync' - it would be very helpful to be able to see > noise/interference as well as calculate loop length, check bridge > taps, and any other kind of metallic testing that would help to > identify and isolate loop troubles. > > Thank you. > > Mike- Aside from the metrics from inside the modem, you are not going to get much more unless you have access to the telco's internal metallic testing equipment. (I used to fix the CO based equipment that the telco used for that testing before I left in '98) Lyle Giese LCR Computer Services, Inc. From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 28 18:45:37 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:45:37 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> Message-ID: <C3E6B0C5-302A-488E-AC50-635E96FF6E7B@delong.com> Astroturfing doesn’t require a fake organization, just fraudulent use of an organization claiming to be grass roots. I guarantee you that the majority of the communities represented by those organizations probably don’t even understand the issue. Of those that do, I suspect that if you polled them, you’d find most of the not backing the position contained in the document. Somehow, the anti-internet-freedom collection of monopoly/oligopoly interests managed to coopt the leadership of those organizations into this astroturf. Owen On Jul 27, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising networks. > > Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: > > "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has reported <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones version of their service without charging customers for the data. > > "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia." > > http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ Actually, I don’t see this ruling as such a bad thing. > Internet Freedom? Not so much. We can agree to disagree. I don’t think leveraging one semi-captive audience to build a captive audience for other companies is a good thing. It reduces the potential for new entrants to compete on an even footing. (Not that there aren’t already plenty of barriers to competing with Facebook and/or Google, but adding cross-subsidies from TPC shouldn’t be an additional one. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 28 19:02:16 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:02:16 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> Message-ID: <C4CFF1EE-55A5-45CC-AF88-690C52A4F527@delong.com> On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" Professor van Schewick is pretty clear about making the users pay for the edge providers in her tome on Internet architecture and innovation. This is as absurd as the people you shill^wpoopy-head (per your request) for. The users pay either way. Either the content provider(s) pay the carriers and then bill the users (at a mark up) or the users pay directly (hopefully without the markup). We are, after all, not talking about data that Netflix wants to inflict on the unsuspecting user. We are talking about data that the user REQUESTED from Netflix. Saying “Content providers should pay” sounds great, because it sounds like it gives the end-user a free ride, but the reality is a little different. Let’s have a look at the unintended consequences of such a policy: 1. End users get billed more by the content providers to cover this additional cost. 2. Content providers have to mark up what they are charged by the end-user’s ISPs, and they want to charge a uniform rate to all customers, so the most likely result is that they bill end users based on a marked up rate from the most expensive eyeball ISP they are forced to pay. 3. As a result of these additional charges, you create barriers to competition in the content space which begins to turn content into more of an oligopoly like access currently is. Its a giant step in the exact opposite direction of good. Frankly, I give Netflix a lot of credit for fighting this instead of taking the benefits it could provide and screwing over their customers and their competition. > Competition is a wonderful thing where it can work, but it's not a panacea, especially for the poor and for high-cost, rural areas. Communication policy has pretty much always relied on some form of subsidy for these situations, that's the universal service fee we pay on our phone bills. How would you know… Let’s _TRY_ it and see what happens? Subsidy for those situations is probably necessary, but so far, subsidy has always been structured to subsidize monopolies and block competition (at the request(demand) of the very people you shill^wpoopy-head for). If we changed the subsidies a tiny bit so that all subsidized infrastructure was built in a manner open to multiple higher-level service providers (e.g. subsidized open fiber builds to serving wire centers with colocation capabilities) and made those facilities available to all service providers on an equal footing (same cost, same ToS, same SLA, same ticket priority, etc.) I bet you’d see a very different situation develop rather quickly. > Susan Crawford explicitly complains that American ISPs "gouge the rich" by charging more than the OECD norm for high-speed (50 Mbps and above) service, but she fails to point out that they also charge less than the norm for low-speed (15 Mbps and below) service. Whatever… The bottom line is that overall, throughout the US, even in the most densely populated areas, we are far behind what you can get in places like NL, KR, SG, SE, etc. and paying generally more for it. > I think it's easy to create unintended consequences if you don't look at how specific regulations affect real people, no matter how high-minded and principled they may appear at the surface. OK, so please tell me what are the horrible unintended consequences of making layer 1 an open platform available on an equal footing to all competing L2+ providers that want to compete? As you point out, most L1 has been built with taxpayer money and/or subsidy, so what’s the horrible downside to letting it actually work or the taxpayers instead of the oligopolistic law firms masquerading as communications companies? Owen > > RB > > > On 7/27/14, 7:08 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> >> Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out against NN at the last minute. >> >> The EFF did recently address the issue. >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide >> >> <quote> >> >> However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for decades to come. >> >> Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have access to anything else, Facebook /is/ the Internet. On such an Internet, the task of filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes so much easier, and the potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers to roll out their own innovative online services using local languages and content is severely curtailed. >> >> Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen the digital divide. But do you know whatmost <http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/more-competition-essential-for-future-of-mobile-innovation.htm>stakeholders <http://a4ai.org/policy-and-regulatory-best-practices/>agree <http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/27.aspx>is a better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition—which we can foster through rules that reduce the power of telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules against clearly impermissible practices like website blocking. >> >> </quote> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com <mailto:richard at bennett.com>> wrote: >> >> So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony >> organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public >> Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are >> legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. >> >> It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced >> that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers >> money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the >> pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and >> most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, >> on-line retailers, and advertising networks. >> >> Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when >> that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who >> provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to >> Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: >> >> "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies >> of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put >> an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries >> <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, >> of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz >> has reported >> <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, >> companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike >> up deals >> <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> >> with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones >> version of their service without charging customers for the data. >> >> "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee >> <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> >> from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are >> widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of >> their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data >> charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a >> gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of >> the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay >> for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the >> practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of >> zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia." >> >> http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ >> >> Internet Freedom? Not so much. >> >> RB >> >> >> >> On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> Now, this is astroturfing. >>> >>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality >>> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast >> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - > > -- > Richard Bennett > Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute > Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy > Editor, High Tech Forum From corbe at corbe.net Mon Jul 28 19:17:32 2014 From: corbe at corbe.net (Daniel Corbe) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:17:32 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> (Richard Bennett's message of "Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:35:39 -0700") References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> Message-ID: <ygfoaw9z41f.fsf@corbe.net> I don't have much to add to this discussion, but... Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> writes: > I'm also not enthusiastic about relying on government programs > to upgrade infrastructure to fiber of some random spec, because the > entry of government into this market suppresses investments by > independent fiber contractors and doesn't necessarily lead to optimal > placement of new fiber routes. The First Net experience is proving > that to be the case, I believe. People will eventually come to rely on the Internet as a critical piece of infrastructure. And many already do. Provisioning service and routing packets needs to be separated from provisioning physical access in any form. If the governments need to step in to do the latter, I'm happy for them to do so as long as it falls under some lattice of framework similar to the public utilities commission. So that the localities responsible for maintaining the infrastructure are compelled to act responsibly. Or if you *really* want to be in the business of owning infrastructure on a commercial basis, your business should be wavelengths, not packets. > > In other words, the Internet that we have today isn't the best of all > possible networks, it's just the devil we know. > -Daniel From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 28 19:18:01 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:18:01 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> Message-ID: <F00A93CD-5B94-4581-A818-B1242FA354FF@delong.com> On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: > > http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html > > " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.” Which is as it should be… There’s no reason $EYEBALL_ISP should get to double-bill both their customer and Netflix et. al. for the same traffic. There are a few possible cases… <USER><EYEBALL_ISP><CONTENT_PROVIDER> In this case, USER is paying Eyeball ISP and the costs are minimized. <USER><EYEBALL_ISP><PUBLIC_EXCHANGE><CONTENT_PROVIDER> In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and EYEBALL_ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pay PUBLIC_EXCHANGE (minimal fee usually) and costs are still relatively small. <USER><EYEBALL_ISP><TRANSIT_ISP><CONTENT_PROVIDER> In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pays TRANSIT_ISP. Since both ISPs have been paid by their respective customers, there shouldn’t be any need for money to change hands between TRANSIT_ISP and EYEBALL_ISP. This is the most expensive case for CONTENT_PROVIDER and possibly USER. In all of the above scenarios, EYEBALL_ISPs costs are very similar. There’s really no valid reason for EYEBALL_ISP to attempt to extort money from CONTENT_PROVIDER in order to deliver packets requested by USER who already pays them. No matter how much you spin this or how many times you try to contort it to argue that CONTENT_PROVIDER should be forced to subsidize USER’s service from EYEBALL_ISP, the argument just doesn’t hold water if you actually analyze it. > This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation.” It seems pretty close to the traditional understanding of net neutrality to me. A neutral network requires that Network A doesn’t try to jack Network B for payment to deliver packets requested by users paying Network A. However, I realize that these facts interfere with your role as a shill^wpoopy-head, so obviously you can’t accept them as in any way legitimate. Owen > > Very wow. > > RB > > > On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for >>> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge >>> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the >>> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" >> In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get >> their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the >> Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and >> Cogent. >> >> - Matt >> > > -- > Richard Bennett > Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute > Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy > Editor, High Tech Forum From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 28 19:39:17 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:39:17 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > It's hard to see a revolution when you're in the middle of it. [...], the > Internet will shift from a tool for > reading web sites and watching occasional cat videos to a system whose main > job (from the perspective of traffic) is video streaming. The magnitude of > the change will necessarily cause a re-evaluation of the norms for > interconnection, aggregation, content placement, and protocol design. Richard, Before Netflix it was Bittorrent. Before Bittorrent it was Usenet. Before the Internet, history records no shortage of companies willing to falsely advertise a product that did less than was claimed. Nor is fraudulent double-billing a recent invention. There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest otherwise, and every one of these eyeball networks sold products which, on paper, were consistent with the use of Netflix. Without requiring additional payment beyond the customers' subscriber fee. And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. Right through this very minute and beyond. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From mike at mtcc.com Mon Jul 28 20:38:03 2014 From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:38:03 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D6B4AB.40700@mtcc.com> On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: > And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any > reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. > Right through this very minute and beyond. > It would be amusing to see Netflix just call their bluff. And maybe donate some lawyers for the inevitable class action lawsuit for false advertising against the eyeball networks. I imagine other self-interested 900lb gorillas might join the fun too. Mike From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 20:43:23 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:43:23 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <C4CFF1EE-55A5-45CC-AF88-690C52A4F527@delong.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <C4CFF1EE-55A5-45CC-AF88-690C52A4F527@delong.com> Message-ID: <53D6B5EB.5010707@bennett.com> Owen, your mother should have told you that you need to play nice if you want the other children to play with you. On 7/28/14, 12:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > >> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" Professor van Schewick is pretty clear about making the users pay for the edge providers in her tome on Internet architecture and innovation. > This is as absurd as the people you shill^wpoopy-head (per your request) for. > > The users pay either way. > > Either the content provider(s) pay the carriers and then bill the users (at a mark up) or the users pay directly (hopefully without the markup). > > We are, after all, not talking about data that Netflix wants to inflict on the unsuspecting user. We are talking about data that the user REQUESTED from Netflix. > > Saying “Content providers should pay” sounds great, because it sounds like it gives the end-user a free ride, but the reality is a little different. > Let’s have a look at the unintended consequences of such a policy: > > 1. End users get billed more by the content providers to cover this additional cost. > 2. Content providers have to mark up what they are charged by the end-user’s ISPs, and they want to charge a uniform > rate to all customers, so the most likely result is that they bill end users based on a marked up rate from the most > expensive eyeball ISP they are forced to pay. > 3. As a result of these additional charges, you create barriers to competition in the content space which begins to turn > content into more of an oligopoly like access currently is. Its a giant step in the exact opposite direction of good. > > Frankly, I give Netflix a lot of credit for fighting this instead of taking the benefits it could provide and screwing over their customers and > their competition. > > >> Competition is a wonderful thing where it can work, but it's not a panacea, especially for the poor and for high-cost, rural areas. Communication policy has pretty much always relied on some form of subsidy for these situations, that's the universal service fee we pay on our phone bills. > How would you know… Let’s _TRY_ it and see what happens? Subsidy for those situations is probably necessary, but so far, subsidy has always been structured to subsidize monopolies and block competition (at the request(demand) of the very people you shill^wpoopy-head for). > > If we changed the subsidies a tiny bit so that all subsidized infrastructure was built in a manner open to multiple higher-level service providers (e.g. subsidized open fiber builds to serving wire centers with colocation capabilities) and made those facilities available to all service providers on an equal footing (same cost, same ToS, same SLA, same ticket priority, etc.) I bet you’d see a very different situation develop rather quickly. > >> Susan Crawford explicitly complains that American ISPs "gouge the rich" by charging more than the OECD norm for high-speed (50 Mbps and above) service, but she fails to point out that they also charge less than the norm for low-speed (15 Mbps and below) service. > Whatever… The bottom line is that overall, throughout the US, even in the most densely populated areas, we are far behind what you can get in places like NL, KR, SG, SE, etc. and paying generally more for it. > >> I think it's easy to create unintended consequences if you don't look at how specific regulations affect real people, no matter how high-minded and principled they may appear at the surface. > OK, so please tell me what are the horrible unintended consequences of making layer 1 an open platform available on an equal footing to all competing L2+ providers that want to compete? As you point out, most L1 has been built with taxpayer money and/or subsidy, so what’s the horrible downside to letting it actually work or the taxpayers instead of the oligopolistic law firms masquerading as communications companies? > > Owen > >> RB >> >> >> On 7/27/14, 7:08 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out against NN at the last minute. >>> >>> The EFF did recently address the issue. >>> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide >>> >>> <quote> >>> >>> However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for decades to come. >>> >>> Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have access to anything else, Facebook /is/ the Internet. On such an Internet, the task of filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes so much easier, and the potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers to roll out their own innovative online services using local languages and content is severely curtailed. >>> >>> Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen the digital divide. But do you know whatmost <http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/more-competition-essential-for-future-of-mobile-innovation.htm>stakeholders <http://a4ai.org/policy-and-regulatory-best-practices/>agree <http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/27.aspx>is a better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition—which we can foster through rules that reduce the power of telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules against clearly impermissible practices like website blocking. >>> >>> </quote> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com <mailto:richard at bennett.com>> wrote: >>> >>> So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony >>> organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public >>> Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are >>> legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. >>> >>> It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced >>> that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers >>> money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the >>> pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and >>> most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, >>> on-line retailers, and advertising networks. >>> >>> Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when >>> that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who >>> provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to >>> Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: >>> >>> "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies >>> of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put >>> an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries >>> <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>, >>> of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz >>> has reported >>> <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>, >>> companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike >>> up deals >>> <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> >>> with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones >>> version of their service without charging customers for the data. >>> >>> "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee >>> <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/> >>> from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are >>> widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of >>> their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data >>> charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a >>> gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of >>> the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay >>> for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the >>> practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of >>> zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia." >>> >>> http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ >>> >>> Internet Freedom? Not so much. >>> >>> RB >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>> Now, this is astroturfing. >>>> >>>> http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast >>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute >> Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy >> Editor, High Tech Forum -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From tom at ninjabadger.net Mon Jul 28 20:45:44 2014 From: tom at ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:45:44 +0100 Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. In-Reply-To: <53266209fb3041f39773a3b2e0afcef1@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> References: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> <53266209fb3041f39773a3b2e0afcef1@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> Message-ID: <53D6B678.3070200@ninjabadger.net> On 28/07/14 19:33, Timothy Kaufman wrote: > Also maybe the ODPM-48. I've got the CWDM version of this, and it does the job. Haven't explored the test result downloading/archiving features (didn't expect them to work with Linux anyway) but overall it was very helpful for measuring loss across various passive muxes (where DDM wasn't available). Tom From richard at bennett.com Mon Jul 28 20:47:57 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:47:57 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D6B6FD.6010601@bennett.com> On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: > There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest > otherwise... This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that reflects the intense conservatism of a certain part of the Internet establishment. I'm inclined to go for new services, new norms, and progress. But that's just my personal bias, not a law of nature. RB -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From bill at herrin.us Mon Jul 28 20:53:44 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:44 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D6B6FD.6010601@bennett.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> <53D6B6FD.6010601@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGUQDSJRbJ-1PGqiCf1_CRHC+BBOqoKBDZN8-LAR1q+zgg@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest >> otherwise... > > This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that reflects the intense conservatism of > a certain part of the Internet establishment. I'm inclined to go for new > services, new norms, and progress. But that's just my personal bias, not a > law of nature. Second verse, same as the first. A little bit louder and a little bit worse. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From weaselkeeper at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 21:35:39 2014 From: weaselkeeper at gmail.com (Jim Richardson) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:35:39 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUQDSJRbJ-1PGqiCf1_CRHC+BBOqoKBDZN8-LAR1q+zgg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> <53D6B6FD.6010601@bennett.com> <CAP-guGUQDSJRbJ-1PGqiCf1_CRHC+BBOqoKBDZN8-LAR1q+zgg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAORNjyrHpqN8zeBgSvdXe3562dwWquq6U=hvzjmuR5yCq=yeYw@mail.gmail.com> I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. From neil at knd.org Mon Jul 28 23:34:05 2014 From: neil at knd.org (Neil Davidson) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:34:05 -0600 Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. In-Reply-To: <53D6B678.3070200@ninjabadger.net> References: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> <53266209fb3041f39773a3b2e0afcef1@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> <53D6B678.3070200@ninjabadger.net> Message-ID: <CAJcK4gputiCQaKfKj2P890+9XM_hpx7SYfVtx=3n2UMiSZF4SA@mail.gmail.com> We have the Solid Optics DWDM and CWDM power meters. Simple, inexpensive and works well ... http://www.solid-optics.com/category/cwdm-dwdm/power-meter ... n -- K. Neil Davidson +1-720-258-6345 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hill <tom at ninjabadger.net> wrote: > On 28/07/14 19:33, Timothy Kaufman wrote: > >> Also maybe the ODPM-48. >> > > I've got the CWDM version of this, and it does the job. Haven't explored > the test result downloading/archiving features (didn't expect them to work > with Linux anyway) but overall it was very helpful for measuring loss > across various passive muxes (where DDM wasn't available). > > Tom > From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 29 00:07:57 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:07:57 +1000 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <53D6B4AB.40700@mtcc.com> References: <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> <53D6B4AB.40700@mtcc.com> Message-ID: <20140729000757.GA7836@hezmatt.org> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:38:03PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any > >reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. Right > >through this very minute and beyond. > > It would be amusing to see Netflix just call their bluff. And maybe donate > some lawyers for the inevitable class action lawsuit for false advertising > against the eyeball networks. I imagine other self-interested 900lb > gorillas might join the fun too. I think we've seen the first shots of this battle fired already -- Netflix was putting up notices saying "your video is crap because $ISP is congested" for a little while. I expect that wasn't the last we'll see of that kind of tactic. - Matt -- You know you have a distributed system when the crash of a computer you’ve never heard of stops you from getting any work done. -- Leslie Lamport "Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems" From mpetach at netflight.com Tue Jul 29 00:45:19 2014 From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:45:19 -0700 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAORNjyrHpqN8zeBgSvdXe3562dwWquq6U=hvzjmuR5yCq=yeYw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk2Q-1R9EqT1LVAxVXUHK5bQ2Ujquc3=zvma7zmbT4hYvA@mail.gmail.com> <53D59918.90402@bennett.com> <CAM9VJk0LaU2LFbZF1Nb-X__Ra=wXBpYuY8u1qi=n2dfa2jEtBw@mail.gmail.com> <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com> <20140728044906.GN14709@hezmatt.org> <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com> <CAP-guGV2GBX_itDVhaYzz-4eOY+GhUpTcHgUqQPjz4uHZHtnFQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D697FB.9090509@bennett.com> <CAP-guGVj3EQjB7C=YbW8OLPqhTpkDW=1hnx_4+L5agJJwfN+_g@mail.gmail.com> <53D6B6FD.6010601@bennett.com> <CAP-guGUQDSJRbJ-1PGqiCf1_CRHC+BBOqoKBDZN8-LAR1q+zgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAORNjyrHpqN8zeBgSvdXe3562dwWquq6U=hvzjmuR5yCq=yeYw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAEmG1=p8w1q5P1CuEeUvruYTTkUyfcwUaYumZjpnxQRywQEBNw@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jim Richardson <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote: > I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said > eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, > that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather > than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. > > I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. > > Hey, just wait until the eyeball networks decide they can charge different amounts depending upon their view of the morality of the content being sent... #engage_fly_on_wall_of_boardroom_mode "OK, let's see...Netflix traffic, they get charged $2/mb extra, because they show adult situations and brief nudity. Pornhub show explicit material, but it's mostly boobs and butts, so we'll look the other way, and only charge them $4/mb to get past the choke point (because there's no such thing as a fast lane with QoS, there's only normal and "be glad we didn't throw it *all* on the floor"). Oh my...doublefistingdudes.com...we don't like the idea of naked dudes getting it on over our wires...for them, it's $100/mb if they want their bits to make it to our users. Guess they'll have to jack the price of their content *waaay* up. *sound of high fives all around* " #end_fly_mode Hey, if they don't have to be neutral about it, why not enforce their morality through differential pricing, while they're at it? We could even have differential pricing based on days of the week. "Oh, you want to send your movies to our users on the holy day, when they should be praying? For that privilege, it will cost you 10x what it does on any other day, for you are luring our users into vice and depravity." That "whitelist" must be sounding pretty darn tempting to some executives right about now. Forget about censoring content on the internet that they don't like...they can just bill arbitrarily high rates to let it get through. Price it high enough, and nobody will watch it anymore, and they can go to bed happy. Matt getting ready to start a mail-order DVD service that doesn't charge extra based on what you want to watch... From mehmet at akcin.net Tue Jul 29 03:54:57 2014 From: mehmet at akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:54:57 -0700 Subject: Call for Presentations :: DNS-OARC Fall Workshop 2014 Message-ID: <1C3F032F-E75D-4A68-BC5E-E8F6D011AB6A@akcin.net> NANOG, apologies if you have already seen this in a different list. DNS-OARC Fall Workshop 2014 Los Angeles, California, USA Schedule OARC meeting October 11-13 Program announcement August 29th (six weeks before the meeting) Submission deadline August 15th Call for Papers July 20th Meeting announcement July 20th Official announcement proposed text, feel free to edit Call for Presentations Next OARC Fall Workshop will take place in Los Angeles, California, USA on October 11th to the 13th, the weekend before ICANN51. On Monday October 13th there will be a joint session with ICANN Tech Day. OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for DNS data analysis tools and techniques. This workshop continues OARC's tradition of having meetings include a strong operational component. Presentations from DNS operators are particularly welcome. We'll also gladly accept talks from DNS researchers, as well as any other DNS-related subjects such as tools, visualizations, DNSSEC and novel uses of the DNS. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. Adopting practice from other conferences, a section of lighting talks will be available for short presentations. Workshop Milestones • 20 July 2014, Call for Presentations posted • 21 July 2014, Open for submissions • 15 August 2014, Deadline for submission • 29 August 2014, Final Program published • 9 October 2014, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for abstract submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/workshop-2014-10 The workshop will be organized on different tracks, depending on the topics. On Sunday October 12th we will have the more in depth technical presentations, and on Monday October 13th presentations that can benefit from a larger and broader audience. If you consider submitting a presentation, please let the Programme Committee know for which track in advance to help us organize the presentations tracks. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via (submissions at dns-oarc.net) if you have questions or concerns. Mehmet Akcin, for the OARC Program Committee (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.) From Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com Tue Jul 29 14:33:28 2014 From: Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com (McElearney, Kevin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 +0000 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) Message-ID: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote: >I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said >eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, >that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather >than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. > >I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated application performance issues. From colton.conor at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 14:45:16 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:45:16 -0500 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT Message-ID: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP address? From corbe at corbe.net Tue Jul 29 15:00:46 2014 From: corbe at corbe.net (Daniel Corbe) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:00:46 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> (Colton Conor's message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:45:16 -0500") References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ygftx60xl9d.fsf@corbe.net> Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> writes: > We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is > the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate > with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations > in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP > address? Right now I'm using A10 for NAT. I can't say enough good things about these dudes. But as far as DMCA takedowns are concerned, we're in the habit of casually ignoring them unless they come through our custodian of records. That would be an excellent question for your SE. And I'm kind of curious myself now. -Daniel From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jul 29 15:23:48 2014 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:23:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Colton Conor wrote: > How do you keep track of copyright violations in a CGNAT solution if > multiple customers are sharing the same public IP address? You ask them to provide port numbers. If they can't, then you can't identify a single subscriber. If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation and keep track of the blocks to reduce logging load. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From colton.conor at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 15:25:41 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:25:41 -0500 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <ygftx60xl9d.fsf@corbe.net> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <ygftx60xl9d.fsf@corbe.net> Message-ID: <CAMDdSzP3SieCo32xKBYWGkXvOSaZwL8S7JBAs76dQ6mPmdWG5g@mail.gmail.com> I searched carrier grade NAT in google, and A10 came up a lot. I thought they just had good SEO going on, but it seems they have a good product as well! Does A10 offer DHCP, DNS, and IPAM solutions as well? You really need all 4 to handle carrier grade NAT on an access network right? On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Daniel Corbe <corbe at corbe.net> wrote: > Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> writes: > > > We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who > is > > the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate > > with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright > violations > > in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP > > address? > > Right now I'm using A10 for NAT. I can't say enough good things about > these dudes. > > But as far as DMCA takedowns are concerned, we're in the habit of > casually ignoring them unless they come through our custodian of > records. > > That would be an excellent question for your SE. And I'm kind of > curious myself now. > > -Daniel > From pauldotwall at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 15:55:19 2014 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:55:19 +0000 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <CAHnQ7e+yiSCJ=3gBWKjbhrwCSomgDR5tNJk9-7tpoMuChN0KNA@mail.gmail.com> It is common courtesy around these parts to not libel your customers, especially when they're paying you lots of money and making up 30% of your incoming traffic. That you're posting in "hypotheticals" does not mask your true messaging. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > > > On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote: > >>I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said >>eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, >>that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather >>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. >> >>I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. > > Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also > paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service > (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering > your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even > bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If > eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy > objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a > direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and > some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). > > While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore > decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated > application performance issues. > > From cboyd at gizmopartners.com Tue Jul 29 16:42:31 2014 From: cboyd at gizmopartners.com (Chris Boyd) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> Message-ID: <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation and keep track of the blocks to reduce logging load. There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. --Chris From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 29 16:45:02 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:45:02 -0400 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGV8iq0xe=HxvLjZJZ4U8tio5rCF3MmNNuortVT44k3ZtA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote: >> if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather >>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. > > While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore > decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated > application performance issues. Hi Kevin, Network factors driving application performance issues are sometimes tricky but once the root cause is found, assigning fault is rarely mysterious. When everyone agrees the problem link is at that magical place, a mutually acceptable location where each network has been paid by their respective customer to get the packets there, one network is willing to swap those packets unconditionally and the other isn't, the fault is not mysterious at all. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Tue Jul 29 16:45:46 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:45:46 -0400 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000." <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <9234.1406652346@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said: > (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering > your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even > bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If > eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy > objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a > direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and > some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140729/d683fbb6/attachment.pgp> From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Tue Jul 29 16:54:57 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:54:57 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500." <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> Message-ID: <9856.1406652897@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said: > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that > practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my > communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. See the various lawsuits against the NSA - the vast majority have been summarily dismissed because the plaintiffs couldn't produce evidence their communications had in fact been intercepted, and thus they didn't have standing to sue. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140729/4851db9c/attachment.pgp> From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 29 16:57:54 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> Message-ID: <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Chris Boyd <cboyd at gizmopartners.com> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation and keep track of the blocks to reduce logging load. > > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. > > --Chris As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally unique address? Really? I would not. Owen From rdrake at direcpath.com Tue Jul 29 17:00:23 2014 From: rdrake at direcpath.com (Robert Drake) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:00:23 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> Message-ID: <53D7D327.9000409@direcpath.com> On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: > > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. > > --Chris > Usually, unless the judge is being super generous, they'll provide a timestamp and a destination IP. That should be pretty unique unless they're looking for fraud against large website or something. In the unlikely event that two people hit the same IP at the same time(window) they would probably just throw that information out as unusable for their case. Usually the window they give is ~ 3-5 seconds so they're pretty specific. From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Tue Jul 29 17:10:55 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:10:55 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700." <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> Message-ID: <10924.1406653855@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said: > As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally > unique address? Really? I would not. Does the *other* provider in your area have a more liberal policy? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140729/4b898c3d/attachment.pgp> From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 29 17:21:21 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:21:21 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <10924.1406653855@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> <10924.1406653855@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <74F88F92-61DB-4148-82FA-C81490A44C34@delong.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:10 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said: > >> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally >> unique address? Really? I would not. > > Does the *other* provider in your area have a more liberal policy? None of the providers in my area are currently doing CGN to the best of my knowledge. Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 29 17:19:23 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:19:23 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <53D7D327.9000409@direcpath.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <53D7D327.9000409@direcpath.com> Message-ID: <AEFC0234-1B93-44C0-844B-1F2CEB62CB4D@delong.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Robert Drake <rdrake at direcpath.com> wrote: > > On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: >> >> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. >> >> --Chris >> > Usually, unless the judge is being super generous, they'll provide a timestamp and a destination IP. That should be pretty unique unless they're looking for fraud against large website or something. In the unlikely event that two people hit the same IP at the same time(window) they would probably just throw that information out as unusable for their case. > > Usually the window they give is ~ 3-5 seconds so they're pretty specific. This assumes that your log server and theirs are synchronized to an accurate time source within 3-5 seconds (not necessarily a safe assumption in all cases). Further, in a CGN environment, it’s unlikely you would not have multiple customers using the same IP address even down to the single second. Owen From Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com Tue Jul 29 17:25:47 2014 From: Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com (McElearney, Kevin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:25:47 +0000 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <9234.1406652346@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> <9234.1406652346@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <CFFD4F34.16874E%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said: > >> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering >> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even >> bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If >> eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy >> objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a >> direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and >> some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). > >Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where >eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an >external >challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly >galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they >engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this is the exception vs the rule. Using the “exceptions" are business decisions. Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) - Kevin From excelsio at gmx.com Tue Jul 29 17:27:28 2014 From: excelsio at gmx.com (excelsio at gmx.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:27:28 +0200 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D7D980.5060303@gmx.com> Not exactly what you probably want. But it´s actually working for me: http://ipv6netro.blogspot.de/2013/10/asamap-application-capability-in-wide.html http://enog.jp/~masakazu/vyatta/map/ Am 29.07.2014 16:45, schrieb Colton Conor: > We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is > the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate > with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations > in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP > address? From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 29 17:30:20 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:30:20 -0400 Subject: On a future of open settlement free peering Message-ID: <CAP-guGU6PJxp9Gd9te5MTYxRG5Z=jyuCPrS_nEEJJMe2niqBUw@mail.gmail.com> Howdy folks, It seems to me that we're moving in a direction where either ratioless, high-capacity settlement-free peering will be a industry requirement exercised voluntarily, or where some heavy-handed government regulation will compel some kind of interconnection that the holdouts find even less desirable. I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" before the weight of government crashes down on them -- regulation has no winners, only losers and bigger losers. And sometimes the worst thing that can happen is you get what you ask for with no opportunity to later change your mind. I'm curious what lies beyond that horizon. If we stipulate for the sake of the discussion that open peering is the way it going to be, a critical part of network neutrality, what exactly will that mean? Will it be permissible for one network to ask the other to pay a one-time port cost for the initial interconnect, assuming its representative of the actual cost of a one-time equipment addition? To what degree is redundancy a requirement? If a network refuses to peer in more than one chancy location, does that mean their peering policy isn't really open? Will a network be compliant if the open peering connections are only available in its own data center? Or will they need to be available in neutral data centers? Would a refusal to connect to neutral peering fabrics constitute a refusal to connect to smaller networks? Or is it reasonable to state that anybody who can't come up with 10 gig ports and cross-connects isn't of threshold size? Can a peering policy be open if it's regionally restricted? If my peering points for the mid-Atlantic states only announce routes tied to my mid-Atlantic customers and only propagate your routes to those mid-Atlantic customers, is that acceptable behavior? Or have I mis-served my customers if I don't pull all of them to the location you find it convenient to peer? Food for thought, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From simon at per.reau.lt Tue Jul 29 17:40:04 2014 From: simon at per.reau.lt (Simon Perreault) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:40:04 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <AEFC0234-1B93-44C0-844B-1F2CEB62CB4D@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <53D7D327.9000409@direcpath.com> <AEFC0234-1B93-44C0-844B-1F2CEB62CB4D@delong.com> Message-ID: <53D7DC74.5070102@per.reau.lt> Le 2014-07-29 13:19, Owen DeLong a écrit : >> Usually the window they give is ~ 3-5 seconds so they're pretty specific. > > This assumes that your log server and theirs are synchronized to an accurate time source within 3-5 seconds Not really, since usually port blocks are not immediately reallocated to a different user. There's some timeout involved. RFC 6888 recommends 120 seconds. Simon From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Tue Jul 29 17:51:33 2014 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:51:33 +0000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> Message-ID: <CFFD576C.DB834%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> On 7/29/14, 12:57 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote: >As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally >unique address? Really? I would not. Relevant: http://comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg ;-) - Jason From johnl at iecc.com Tue Jul 29 17:52:42 2014 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 29 Jul 2014 17:52:42 -0000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> Message-ID: <20140729175242.56922.qmail@joyce.lan> >As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally unique address? Really? I would not. My local DSL provider does CGN. I switched to cable, but because it was faster, not because of the addressing. They would assign you a global static IP just by calling up and asking for it. When I left, I think they'd assigned 18 static addresses out of several thousand customers. Most consumer ISP customers don't run servers visible from outside, and don't care about CGN. Really. It's not because they're stupid, it's because it has no effect on their day to day usage. R's, John PS: End to end, is that a subchannel of Redtube? From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 29 17:59:16 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGVYrdOtJgJdccOHKpKLGzXPf48R7gDBAJwhBj=wYo9WOQ@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > As an ISP customer, would you really accept not >being supplied a globally unique address? Really? Hi Owen, I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few would notice or care. So long as the ISP has an alternative available for those who do care (such as an existing static IP request mechanism) CGNs are low-risk from a customer-acceptance position. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From pauldotwall at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 18:20:01 2014 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:20:01 +0000 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <CFFD4F34.16874E%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> <9234.1406652346@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <CFFD4F34.16874E%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <CAHnQ7eLXH60mgDFHvzkV2c2wjRGx3UtFXxH1cnujQHTDfqadXQ@mail.gmail.com> The devil is in the details. Ken Florance (http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html) paints a different picture in his blog, for example. As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? This question comes up about once a month, absent any good solutions, so insight would be appreciated. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:25 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > > > On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> > wrote: > >>On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said: >> >>> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering >>> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even >>> bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If >>> eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy >>> objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a >>> direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and >>> some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). >> >>Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where >>eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an >>external >>challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly >>galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they >>engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. > > > There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while > there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this > is the exception vs the rule. Using the “exceptions" are business > decisions. > > Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) > > - Kevin > From Lee at asgard.org Tue Jul 29 18:20:46 2014 From: Lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:20:46 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <53D7D327.9000409@direcpath.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <53D7D327.9000409@direcpath.com> Message-ID: <CFFD5B4C.66FEF%Lee@asgard.org> On 7/29/14 1:00 PM, "Robert Drake" <rdrake at direcpath.com> wrote: > >On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: >> >> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that >>practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my >>communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another >>user. >> >> --Chris >> >Usually, unless the judge is being super generous, they'll provide a >timestamp and a destination IP. That should be pretty unique unless >they're looking for fraud against large website or something. In the >unlikely event that two people hit the same IP at the same time(window) >they would probably just throw that information out as unusable for >their case. If your CGN logs destination IP, then you are tracking every site your customer visits. Geoff posits that this is valuable information, but some of the likeliest buyers aren't interested. You'll want to find some buyers, because you'll need to defray the cost of your logging. Do some back-of-the-envelope math on the storage required per user per day if you log the 5-tuple. The alternative is logging of address and source ports only, keeping logs equivalent to your DHCP logs now. I've also heard law enforcement say they're not necessarily keen to ask, "Which of your customers accessed this web site at this time?" Sometimes it's awkward. They're much more likely to say, "Who was using this address (and source port) at this time?" If they can't tell you the source port, you have two options: 1. Give them the names of all customers using that address at that time. How many--10? 50? 100? 2. Tell them their subpoena is too broad, and you cannot respond. I suggest you consult with counsel to determine your response. Lee From corbe at corbe.net Tue Jul 29 18:35:26 2014 From: corbe at corbe.net (Daniel Corbe) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:35:26 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzP3SieCo32xKBYWGkXvOSaZwL8S7JBAs76dQ6mPmdWG5g@mail.gmail.com> (Colton Conor's message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:25:41 -0500") References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <ygftx60xl9d.fsf@corbe.net> <CAMDdSzP3SieCo32xKBYWGkXvOSaZwL8S7JBAs76dQ6mPmdWG5g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ygfppgoxbbl.fsf@corbe.net> Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> writes: > I searched carrier grade NAT in google, and A10 came up a lot. I thought they > just had good SEO going on, but it seems they have a good product as well! > Does A10 offer DHCP, DNS, and IPAM solutions as well? You really need all 4 to > handle carrier grade NAT on an access network right?  > They don't have an IPAM built in. IPAMs are usually a back office thing. It's a deeply personal choice usually made by the very same monkey in your organization responsible for managing IP allocations. You can toss IP pool management (in your case, DHCP) at your A10s, but I don't. You can also do some interesting things with DNS on the boxes if you have a software load that supports load balancing. But you don't need that for NAT. Nor is it wise to put all your eggs into one magical packet-routing basket. -Daniel From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 29 20:04:46 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:04:46 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <9856.1406652897@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <9856.1406652897@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <20140729200446.GH7836@hezmatt.org> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:54:57PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said: > > > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that > > practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my > > communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. > > See the various lawsuits against the NSA - the vast majority have been summarily > dismissed because the plaintiffs couldn't produce evidence their communications > had in fact been intercepted, and thus they didn't have standing to sue. And the rest have been thrown out because the plaintiffs couldn't produce evidence that they'd been specifically harmed by having their communications intercepted, probably because it hadn't been "collected" (under the NSA definition of same). - Matt -- A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform. From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 29 20:05:35 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:05:35 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> Message-ID: <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Chris Boyd wrote: > On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a > > list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block > > allocation and keep track of the blocks to reduce logging load. > > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that > practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my > communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another > user. Then you'll no doubt be happy to know that you're very, very unlikely to ever find out. - Matt From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 29 20:06:18 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:06:18 +1000 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <CFFD4F34.16874E%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> <9234.1406652346@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <CFFD4F34.16874E%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <20140729200618.GJ7836@hezmatt.org> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:25:47PM +0000, McElearney, Kevin wrote: > Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) "It takes two to lie, Marge: one to lie, and one to listen." - Matt From tony at wicks.co.nz Tue Jul 29 21:28:53 2014 From: tony at wicks.co.nz (Tony Wicks) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:28:53 +1200 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers in general, here are a few answers to common questions. This is based on the setup I use which is CGNAT is done on the BNG (Cisco ASR1K6). 1. APNIC ran out of IPv4 a couple of years ago, so unless you want to pay USD $10+ per IP then CGNAT is the only option. 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's internet access) 3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just works. 4. You need to log NAT translations for LI purposes. (IP source/destination, Port source/destination, time) Surprisingly this does not produce that big a database burden. However as Cisco's Netflow NAT logging is utterly useless you need to use syslog and this ramps up the ASR CPU a bit. 5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck. 6. 10,000 customers= approximately 200,000 active translations and 1-2 /24's to be comfortable 7. CGNAT protects your customers from all sorts of nasty's like small DDOS attacks and attacks on their crappy CPE 8. DDOS on CGNAT pool IP's are a pain in the rear and happen often. 9. In New Zealand we are not a state of the USA so spammed DCMA emails can be redirected to /dev/null. If a rights holder wishes to have a potential violation investigated (translation logs) they need to pay a $25 fee, so in general they don't bother. Police need a search warrant so they generally only ask for user info when they actually can justify it, so it's not a big overhead. 10. It is not uncommon for people who run some game servers and websites (like banks) to be completely clueless/confused about cgnat and randomly block IP's as large numbers of users connect from single IP. This is not a big issue in practice. cheers From cboyd at gizmopartners.com Tue Jul 29 22:08:43 2014 From: cboyd at gizmopartners.com (Chris Boyd) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:08:43 -0500 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <9856.1406652897@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <9856.1406652897@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <6CFD7B74-123E-4D30-A69D-8D8D316E20D5@gizmopartners.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 11:54 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said: > >> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that >> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my >> communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. > > See the various lawsuits against the NSA - the vast majority have been summarily > dismissed because the plaintiffs couldn't produce evidence their communications > had in fact been intercepted, and thus they didn't have standing to sue. True, but there is a difference in this case, since I could probably find a way to do discovery of the warrant/subpoena that was delivered to the ISP--assuming it's not an NSL. I would assume that going into court with evidence of the warrant/subpoena would be sufficient to grant standing. Or the notice of intercepted communications that I've seen a few times would work too. In $DAYJOB, we're all colo/cloud, so the stuff we get specifies a specific date. Have not come across any that specify a few seconds of time as another poster noted. In any case IANAL, so who knows until the cases start showing up on the dockets..... --Chris From Lee at asgard.org Tue Jul 29 22:19:31 2014 From: Lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:19:31 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> Message-ID: <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has always had it). On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, "Tony Wicks" <tony at wicks.co.nz> wrote: >OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers >in >general, here are a few answers to common questions. This is based on the >setup I use which is CGNAT is done on the BNG (Cisco ASR1K6). > >1. APNIC ran out of IPv4 a couple of years ago, so unless you want to pay >USD $10+ per IP then CGNAT is the only option. Eh, a bit over US$7 now, but whatever. Higher in APNIC. >2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable >thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless >people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's >internet access) It's viable, it's just not a substitute for IPv4 yet. Except for specific scenarios. For instance, you mention gaming below; if two users are playing on Xbox ONE, they can use IPv6 and they're off the CGN. Or if a bank has blacklisted an IPv4 address on the CGN, but the bank is dual-stack, some users can still get there. Of course, that snowballs. >3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just >works. Surprised it's that high. >4. You need to log NAT translations for LI purposes. (IP >source/destination, >Port source/destination, time) Surprisingly this does not produce that >big a >database burden. However as Cisco's Netflow NAT logging is utterly useless >you need to use syslog and this ramps up the ASR CPU a bit. Can you quantify? The log entry has to be at least: 32 bits source address 16 bits source port 32 bits destination address 16 bits destination port 64 bits? timestamp --- 160 bits = 20 bytes per flow You have to log the end of the flow, too, right? Another 20 bytes? 40 bytes per flow. Not including syslog severity and message text. As I recall, a site like cnn.com opens 80 flows, so 3200 bytes of log data. If, as you say in #6, 10,000 customers = 200,000 active translations, that's 8,000,000 bytes of syslog. . . per second? Not sure if "active" indicates how fast those sessions churn. 180 days of log retention would be. . . 124TB of data. Per 10,000 users. By the way, if that's 8MB of syslog, that's 32Mbps just of logging data. Average, not peak. Maybe the actual log rate is 8MB per five minutes? That's only 400GB for six months. I'm really interested in what your actual log rate is. >5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck. At least Xbox ONE prefers IPv6. PS4 can, it just doesn't yet. Maybe Kiwis don't play enough games for Sony to care? >6. 10,000 customers= approximately 200,000 active translations and 1-2 >/24's to be comfortable So you've cut your address expense to US$0.50 per user. Definitely better. (500*$10/10000) >7. CGNAT protects your customers from all sorts of nasty's like small DDOS >attacks and attacks on their crappy CPE >8. DDOS on CGNAT pool IP's are a pain in the rear and happen often. Between #7 and #8, do they balance out? >9. In New Zealand we are not a state of the USA so spammed DCMA emails can >be redirected to /dev/null. If a rights holder wishes to have a potential >violation investigated (translation logs) they need to pay a $25 fee, so >in >general they don't bother. Police need a search warrant so they generally >only ask for user info when they actually can justify it, so it's not a >big >overhead. As long as you have a tool to query your logging system, should be fine. >10. It is not uncommon for people who run some game servers and websites >(like banks) to be completely clueless/confused about cgnat and randomly >block IP's as large numbers of users connect from single IP. This is not >a >big issue in practice. Really? Seems like those would be some of the loudest users. I've always suggested adding IPv6 as an outlet, so that if someone complains about something not working through CGN, you can tell them to deploy IPv6. Thanks again for this perspective. Lee From richard at bennett.com Tue Jul 29 22:21:32 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:21:32 -0700 Subject: On a future of open settlement free peering In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU6PJxp9Gd9te5MTYxRG5Z=jyuCPrS_nEEJJMe2niqBUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP-guGU6PJxp9Gd9te5MTYxRG5Z=jyuCPrS_nEEJJMe2niqBUw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D81E6C.4040609@bennett.com> It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome of the FCC's net neutrality expedition. It wasn't that long ago that a number of NANOGers insisted that such action by the FCC was totally out of the question and could only be suggested by clueless industry shills. I'm talking about a blog post I wrote for GigaOM in 2009 about how video streaming was changing the Internet and the FCC's curiosity about paid peering raised in Question 106 of the 2010 Open Internet NPRM, in which I wrote: "But paid peering may be forbidden by Question 106 <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf> of the FCC’s proposed Open Internet rules because it’s essentially two-tiered network access, [Bill] Norton points out. " Paid peering illustrates how hard it is to write an anti-discrimination rule for the Internet that doesn’t have harmful side effects for all but the largest content networks. Paid peering is a better level of access to an ISP’s customers for a fee, but the fee is less than the price of generic access to the ISP via a transit network. The practice of paid peering also reduces the load on the Internet core, so what’s not to like? Paid peering agreements should be offered for sale on a non-discriminatory basis, but they certainly shouldn’t be banned." http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/ In the comments, Daniel Golding and a number of others who hung out on a particular IRC channel insisted an FCC ban on paid peering was totally out of the question: " Paid peering is not and will not be banned. Bill, unfortunately, made this up. There is no way to read the proposed rulemaking this way – its simply not in the document, at all." One of the more interesting wrinkles was Patrick Gillmore walking back from things he and his co-authors had said about paid peering in an academic paper a few years earlier, such as: “We also have a cautionary conclusion: if one should be motivated (for whatever reason) to contemplate some regulatory rule to manage interconnection (which the debate over Net Neutrality is, in part, about), the design of such a rule will be both complex and informationally demanding. Any simplistic rules that try to define network neutrality as the elimination of discrimination will fail even to match today’s reality by a wide margin. There is a substantial level of economic discrimination today just in the variation in willingness to peer, and the emergence of paid peering and partial transit only increase this space. Partial transit and paid peering may be seen as efficiency-enhancing responses to changing market conditions. While there may be opportunities for abuse by providers with excessive bargaining power, the complexity of what is in place today, and what seems to be working today, would argue that the best way to address any potential concern would be to focus on the sources of bargaining power and identify anti-competitive opportunism, rather than to impose ex ante restrictions on the range of bilateral contracts.” – Complexity of Internet Interconnections: Technology, Incentives and Implications for Policy, P. Faratin, D. Clark, P. Gilmore, S. Bauer, A. Berger and W. Lehr. http://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/Lehr-Papers_files/Clark Lehr Faratin Complexity Interconnection TPRC 2007.pdf It seems that those of us who predicted FCC involvement in peering in the name of net neutrality were right, regardless of the terms we used, the sources we cited, or where our paychecks came from at the time. If you read the initial net neutrality arguments from Tim Wu, Larry Lessig, and Mark Lemley, it's pretty clear that net neutrality was always about interconnection. In "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination" Wu discussed it in terms of a "gateway" between a broadband network and "the Internet"; see: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863 . That was obviously a simplification, but it's clear that his "gateway" represented the entire interconnection apparatus connecting a given eyeball network to the rest of the Internet. And perhaps it's also clear that this "gateway" can never be neutral because it comes down to ports at specific locations and a distribution and aggregation fabric between residential connections and ports that can never provide exactly the same service on every possible path. From one point of view, questions about fair and equitable interconnection have to do simply with fees and capacity, but from another they have to do with steps the traffic source should take to ensure that it releases traffic into the eyeball network at locations that permit the most efficient internal routing. And other questions are beginning to emerge about the poor interaction of video rate control algorithms and TCP congestion control that indicate that services such as YouTube and Netflix are actually their own worst enemies, see: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521706465 , page 13, and http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521389953 , page 8. So yeah, the demand for "free and open" interconnection is front and center, and it tends to submerge questions about the obligations of traffic sources to deliver to the best locations in an efficient way. There certainly are opportunities for abuse on both sides of the "gateway". RB On 7/29/14, 10:30 AM, William Herrin wrote: > Howdy folks, > > It seems to me that we're moving in a direction where either > ratioless, high-capacity settlement-free peering will be a industry > requirement exercised voluntarily, or where some heavy-handed > government regulation will compel some kind of interconnection that > the holdouts find even less desirable. I can only hope the holdouts > will "see the light" before the weight of government crashes down on > them -- regulation has no winners, only losers and bigger losers. And > sometimes the worst thing that can happen is you get what you ask for > with no opportunity to later change your mind. > > I'm curious what lies beyond that horizon. If we stipulate for the > sake of the discussion that open peering is the way it going to be, a > critical part of network neutrality, what exactly will that mean? > > > Will it be permissible for one network to ask the other to pay a > one-time port cost for the initial interconnect, assuming its > representative of the actual cost of a one-time equipment addition? > > To what degree is redundancy a requirement? If a network refuses to > peer in more than one chancy location, does that mean their peering > policy isn't really open? > > Will a network be compliant if the open peering connections are only > available in its own data center? Or will they need to be available in > neutral data centers? > > Would a refusal to connect to neutral peering fabrics constitute a > refusal to connect to smaller networks? Or is it reasonable to state > that anybody who can't come up with 10 gig ports and cross-connects > isn't of threshold size? > > Can a peering policy be open if it's regionally restricted? If my > peering points for the mid-Atlantic states only announce routes tied > to my mid-Atlantic customers and only propagate your routes to those > mid-Atlantic customers, is that acceptable behavior? Or have I > mis-served my customers if I don't pull all of them to the location > you find it convenient to peer? > > > Food for thought, > Bill Herrin > > -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 29 22:42:55 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:42:55 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> Message-ID: <20140729224255.GN7836@hezmatt.org> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote: > Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the > perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has > always had it). > > On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, "Tony Wicks" <tony at wicks.co.nz> wrote: > > >OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers > >in > >general, here are a few answers to common questions. This is based on the > >setup I use which is CGNAT is done on the BNG (Cisco ASR1K6). > > > >1. APNIC ran out of IPv4 a couple of years ago, so unless you want to pay > >USD $10+ per IP then CGNAT is the only option. > > Eh, a bit over US$7 now, but whatever. Higher in APNIC. > > >2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable > >thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless > >people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's > >internet access) > > It's viable, it's just not a substitute for IPv4 yet. > Except for specific scenarios. For instance, you mention gaming below; if > two users are playing on Xbox ONE, they can use IPv6 and they're off the > CGN. Or if a bank has blacklisted an IPv4 address on the CGN, but the > bank is dual-stack, some users can still get there. > Of course, that snowballs. > > >3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just > >works. > > Surprised it's that high. > > >4. You need to log NAT translations for LI purposes. (IP > >source/destination, > >Port source/destination, time) Surprisingly this does not produce that > >big a > >database burden. However as Cisco's Netflow NAT logging is utterly useless > >you need to use syslog and this ramps up the ASR CPU a bit. > > Can you quantify? > The log entry has to be at least: > 32 bits source address > 16 bits source port > 32 bits destination address > 16 bits destination port > 64 bits? timestamp > --- > 160 bits = 20 bytes per flow > You have to log the end of the flow, too, right? Another 20 bytes? > 40 bytes per flow. Not including syslog severity and message text. You can get it down a bit smaller, if you're OK with having to find the records again to update them at the end of the connection (either TCP FIN, or UDP mapping timeout): 32 bits NAT endpoint ip 16 bits NAT endpoint port 32 bits dest ip 16 bits dest port 32 bits start timestamp 32 bits end timestamp 16 bits customer ID (you could store the customer's internal IP, but that's bigger) That's 22 bytes per flow (maybe 24 if you're planning on having more than 64ki customers in your CGNAT's lifetime). You could drop the timestamps by another 16 bits each if you don't mind reducing granularity (if you guarantee you won't reuse a given IP/port pair for, say, 30 seconds, you can define the timestamp to be, say, 15 second increments) and/or changing the epoch -- 15 second granularity + rolling epoch every week => 16 bit timestamps do just fine. > As I recall, a site like cnn.com opens 80 flows, so 3200 bytes of log data. > If, as you say in #6, 10,000 customers = 200,000 active translations, > that's 8,000,000 bytes of syslog. . . per second? Not sure if "active" > indicates how fast those sessions churn. > 180 days of log retention would be. . . 124TB of data. Per 10,000 users. Of course, getting anything back *out* of that again in any sort of reasonable timeframe would be... optimistic. I suppose if you're storing it all in hadoop you can map/reduce your way out of trouble, but that's going to mean a lot of equipment sitting around doing nothing for 99.99% of the time. Perhaps mine litecoin between searches? > >7. CGNAT protects your customers from all sorts of nasty's like small DDOS > >attacks and attacks on their crappy CPE > >8. DDOS on CGNAT pool IP's are a pain in the rear and happen often. > > Between #7 and #8, do they balance out? I'd doubt it. A customer getting DDoS'd counts against their usage limit; you can't bill traffic pointed at a CGNAT address against any particular customer. <grin> - Matt -- If only more employers realized that people join companies, but leave bosses. A boss should be an insulator, not a conductor or an amplifier. -- Geoff Kinnel, in the Monastery From cootercopter at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 02:45:24 2014 From: cootercopter at gmail.com (Craig Cooter) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:45:24 -0400 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKyA8RCx4Fsdf9Z-N==_sFHzQztsqddO+FCZh-ZyJ=+uvP1sTQ@mail.gmail.com> "Without comment" being a load of crap, as the subject is comment. Because when I think integrity, I think sock puppets. From corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com Tue Jul 29 02:21:32 2014 From: corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com (Corey Touchet) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:21:32 +0000 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing Message-ID: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> I’m curious what other providers have gone with when moving away from SUP720-3BXL 6500 platforms. I’m platform agnostic and just as comfortable with Juniper as with Cisco. It’s a conversation were having since the 3BXL’s are running into limits with the large number of prefixes, long eBGP convergence times, and 10G port density. Basically were looking to carry multiple full routing tables from several 4+ carriers plus internet exchange traffic so the ability to handle 1-2M IPV4 and 500K+ IPv6 and decent 10G port density and/or 40G options as well. Also should have decent CPU capabilities so it can crunch routes in a reasonable amount of time. Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. Opinions on those are equally welcome as alternatives, but I’d love to hear from those with personal experiences today vs sales people trying to tell me it would route the world :) Thanks, Corey T From corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com Tue Jul 29 15:11:48 2014 From: corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com (Corey Touchet) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:11:48 +0000 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <CFFD1375.10C4A%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side by side. However I doubt Level3 is going to sit there and lie about their connection to Verizon being overloaded, and for Verizon to do any kind of meaningful QOS it would require an effort on the Level3 side of the connection as well. On 7/29/14, 8:33 AM, "McElearney, Kevin" <Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > > >On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote: > >>I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said >>eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, >>that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather >>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. >> >>I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. > >Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also >paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service >(w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering >your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even >bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If >eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy >objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a >direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and >some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). > >While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore >decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated >application performance issues. > > From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Tue Jul 29 22:53:52 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:53:52 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> Message-ID: <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: > 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable > thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless > people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's > internet access) Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. > 3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just > works. More precisely: you don't hear from 99.99% of customers, regardless of whether or not they notice problems that are caused by CGNAT. People put up with some *really* bad stuff sometimes without mentioning it to their service provider. > 5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck. Do they suck, or do they just not misbehave in a way that plays nicely with your CGNAT? > 10. It is not uncommon for people who run some game servers and websites > (like banks) to be completely clueless/confused about cgnat and randomly > block IP's as large numbers of users connect from single IP. This is not a > big issue in practice. Is this cluelessness, or just reacting to a usage pattern which overwhelmingly screams "abuse" that your CGNAT happens to emulate? From my experience, I've blocked a lot more abusive sources than NATs by blocking IPs that originate a lot of connections with varying UAs, for example. If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, it isn't only clueless people who will call you a duck. - Matt -- "Python is a rich scripting language offering a lot of the power of C++ while retaining the ease of use of VBscript." -- The PyWin32 documentation From simon at slimey.org Tue Jul 29 22:56:36 2014 From: simon at slimey.org (Simon Lockhart) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:56:36 +0100 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> Message-ID: <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> On Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:21:32AM +0000, Corey Touchet wrote: > Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. Opinions on those are > equally welcome as alternatives, but I?d love to hear from those with > personal experiences today vs sales people trying to tell me it would route > the world :) Or, protect your existing investment in 6500 and replace the SUP720 with the SUP2T. You can then deploy the WS-X6904-40G-XL blades which give you 4 * 40G or 16 * 10G on a 80G backplane (i.e. 2:1 oversubscription). I'm in the process of going through this upgrade at the moment and I'm happy with what I'm seeing. A lot depends on the total traffic throughput you're looking to switch/route. You can then look to migrate onto the 6880 chassis which gives you a faster backplane, whilst retaining compatibility with existing linecards. Simon From rdrake at direcpath.com Tue Jul 29 22:58:11 2014 From: rdrake at direcpath.com (Robert Drake) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:58:11 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <20140729224255.GN7836@hezmatt.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> <20140729224255.GN7836@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <53D82703.2090204@direcpath.com> On 7/29/2014 6:42 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > Of course, getting anything back*out* of that again in any sort of > reasonable timeframe would be... optimistic. I suppose if you're storing it > all in hadoop you can map/reduce your way out of trouble, but that's going > to mean a lot of equipment sitting around doing nothing for 99.99% of the > time. Perhaps mine litecoin between searches? The timestamp is a natural index. You shouldn't need to run a distributed query for finding information about a specific incident. You would have to write your own custom tools to access and manage the db, so that's just impractical. The timestamp as well as most of the other fields should be fairly easily compressible since most of the bits are the same. You might as well use a regular plaintext logfile and gzip it. From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 29 23:00:22 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:00:22 -0400 Subject: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity) In-Reply-To: <CFFD1375.10C4A%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> References: <CFFD25FD.168613%kevin_mcelearney@cable.comcast.com> <CFFD1375.10C4A%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGUuKpifomkiZgXXxaU=dV2ap1bn7OFp1C7X=jJRkAay8w@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Corey Touchet <corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com> wrote: > What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint > path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves > that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side > by side. Been done: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-slow-on-verizon-or-comcast-a-vpn-might-speed-up-that-video/ http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186673-how-to-use-a-vpn-to-boost-your-netflix-performance-even-if-youre-not-a-verizon-customer http://www.techhive.com/article/2457642/how-a-netflix-subscriber-used-vpn-to-thwart-verizons-streaming-slowdown.html -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bill at herrin.us Tue Jul 29 23:12:19 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: On a future of open settlement free peering In-Reply-To: <53D81E6C.4040609@bennett.com> References: <CAP-guGU6PJxp9Gd9te5MTYxRG5Z=jyuCPrS_nEEJJMe2niqBUw@mail.gmail.com> <53D81E6C.4040609@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWJNKirB_4YnCVdAoWLSMxL5nnoUdXDqKvQKRiGc5W3vg@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you > prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome > of the FCC's net neutrality expedition. I don't think an FCC ban on paid peering is a plausible outcome this go-around. The question, as I understand it, is reclassification of broadband. If they actually go for reclassification, then you guys are screwed. Paid peering would be the least of the dominoes to fall in the follow-on rulemaking which would be necessary as a result of reclassification. Reclassification might bring a serious discussion of L1/L2 structural separation to the table. It wouldn't be the FCC's first foray into structural separation and as far as I know the laws which allow are still on the books. If I was one of the eyeball network lobbyists, I'd be begging the FCC to let me try open peering and give it a chance to achieve the commission's public policy objectives WITHOUT reclassification. But then I guess that's why I'm not a telecom-paid lobbyist, eh? ;) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From marka at isc.org Tue Jul 29 23:13:27 2014 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:13:27 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:53:52 +1000." <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> Message-ID: <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> In message <20140729225352.GO7836 at hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: > > 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable > > thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless > > people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's > > internet access) > > Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so > that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is > probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the > broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you need to do from day 1. > > 3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just > > works. > > More precisely: you don't hear from 99.99% of customers, regardless of > whether or not they notice problems that are caused by CGNAT. People put up > with some *really* bad stuff sometimes without mentioning it to their > service provider. Like modems that introduce 2 second queuing delays the moment you have a upstream transfer like a icloud backup. Buffer @!#$!@#$! bloat! -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From tony at wicks.co.nz Tue Jul 29 23:23:27 2014 From: tony at wicks.co.nz (Tony Wicks) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:23:27 +1200 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> Message-ID: <004601cfab84$19ef4e20$4dcdea60$@wicks.co.nz> >>3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just >>works. Surprised it's that high. So was I to be honest, but in general "It Just Works". >>4. You need to log NAT translations for LI purposes. (IP >>source/destination, Port source/destination, time) Surprisingly this >>does not produce that big a database burden. However as Cisco's Netflow >>NAT logging is utterly useless you need to use syslog and this ramps up >>the ASR CPU a bit. > >Can you quantify? >The log entry has to be at least: >32 bits source address >16 bits source port >32 bits destination address >16 bits destination port >64 bits? timestamp The issue with the Cisco NAT Translation flow is that as soon as you set the nat mode to CGN it no longer sends the Pre Nat IP (100.64.x.x), which makes it useless for matching against radius to identify the user. Several weeks of arguing with TAC engineers got nowhere. TAC said, no that can't be done, but could not explain why it worked fine with syslog translation logging. --- 160 bits = 20 bytes per flow You have to log the end of the flow, too, right? Another 20 bytes? 40 bytes per flow. Not including syslog severity and message text. As I recall, a site like cnn.com opens 80 flows, so 3200 bytes of log data. If, as you say in #6, 10,000 customers = 200,000 active translations, that's 8,000,000 bytes of syslog. . . per second? Not sure if "active" indicates how fast those sessions churn. 180 days of log retention would be. . . 124TB of data. Per 10,000 users. That is 200,000 active translations, not 200,000 per second. The ESP40 can handle 2,000,000 active translations. >By the way, if that's 8MB of syslog, that's 32Mbps just of logging data. >Average, not peak. > >Maybe the actual log rate is 8MB per five minutes? That's only 400GB for six months. > >I'm really interested in what your actual log rate is. Per 10,000 customers we are getting about 2,000,000 records per day in the database real world. We first in first out these after three months. How much bandwidth ? Don't know, I have not actually looked. >>5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck. > >At least Xbox ONE prefers IPv6. >PS4 can, it just doesn't yet. >Maybe Kiwis don't play enough games for Sony to care? Few CPE routers support native v6 (we are a low cost, BYO router ISP) >>7. CGNAT protects your customers from all sorts of nasty's like small >>DDOS attacks and attacks on their crappy CPE 8. DDOS on CGNAT pool IP's >>are a pain in the rear and happen often. > >Between #7 and #8, do they balance out? Yes, you just need to treat DDOS mitigation a little differently, you can't just upstream block your destination ip as that can randomly nuke thousands of customer translations. You need to remove the target IP from your CGANT pool first. >>9. In New Zealand we are not a state of the USA so spammed DCMA emails >>can be redirected to /dev/null. If a rights holder wishes to have a >>potential violation investigated (translation logs) they need to pay a >>$25 fee, so in general they don't bother. Police need a search warrant >>so they generally only ask for user info when they actually can justify >>it, so it's not a big overhead. > >As long as you have a tool to query your logging system, should be fine. Yes, it doesn't take a lot to develop the tool. Most of the work is in educating the authorities that they need to supply the exact source/destination ip, destination port and timestamps if they want any data back . >>10. It is not uncommon for people who run some game servers and >>websites (like banks) to be completely clueless/confused about cgnat >>and randomly block IP's as large numbers of users connect from single >>IP. This is not a big issue in practice. > >Really? Seems like those would be some of the loudest users. > >I've always suggested adding IPv6 as an outlet, so that if someone complains about something not working through CGN, you can tell them to deploy IPv6. Yes, there are only been a few websites that have caused some issues over the last two years, nowhere near as bad as I expected it to be. >Thanks again for this perspective. > >Lee Happy to help. People tend to panic about the unknown. And in this case it's really not as scary as people think, in general it just works and pretty much no standard residential customers notice. From richard at bennett.com Tue Jul 29 23:24:13 2014 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:24:13 -0700 Subject: On a future of open settlement free peering In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWJNKirB_4YnCVdAoWLSMxL5nnoUdXDqKvQKRiGc5W3vg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP-guGU6PJxp9Gd9te5MTYxRG5Z=jyuCPrS_nEEJJMe2niqBUw@mail.gmail.com> <53D81E6C.4040609@bennett.com> <CAP-guGWJNKirB_4YnCVdAoWLSMxL5nnoUdXDqKvQKRiGc5W3vg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D82D1D.70206@bennett.com> So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" before the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing an unlikely outcome? For what purpose, trolling? BTW, I'm not a lobbyist, but you already knew that. RB On 7/29/14, 4:12 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: >> It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you >> prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome >> of the FCC's net neutrality expedition. > I don't think an FCC ban on paid peering is a plausible outcome this > go-around. The question, as I understand it, is reclassification of > broadband. If they actually go for reclassification, then you guys are > screwed. Paid peering would be the least of the dominoes to fall in > the follow-on rulemaking which would be necessary as a result of > reclassification. > > Reclassification might bring a serious discussion of L1/L2 structural > separation to the table. It wouldn't be the FCC's first foray into > structural separation and as far as I know the laws which allow are > still on the books. > > If I was one of the eyeball network lobbyists, I'd be begging the FCC > to let me try open peering and give it a chance to achieve the > commission's public policy objectives WITHOUT reclassification. > > But then I guess that's why I'm not a telecom-paid lobbyist, eh? ;) > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum From jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us Tue Jul 29 23:28:26 2014 From: jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us (John van Oppen) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:28:26 +0000 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> Message-ID: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE7634E40C335@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us> We gave up and went to ASR9ks but that that was also a pretty big budget upgrade... -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:57 PM To: Corey Touchet Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing On Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:21:32AM +0000, Corey Touchet wrote: > Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. Opinions on those > are equally welcome as alternatives, but I?d love to hear from those > with personal experiences today vs sales people trying to tell me it > would route the world :) Or, protect your existing investment in 6500 and replace the SUP720 with the SUP2T. You can then deploy the WS-X6904-40G-XL blades which give you 4 * 40G or 16 * 10G on a 80G backplane (i.e. 2:1 oversubscription). I'm in the process of going through this upgrade at the moment and I'm happy with what I'm seeing. A lot depends on the total traffic throughput you're looking to switch/route. You can then look to migrate onto the 6880 chassis which gives you a faster backplane, whilst retaining compatibility with existing linecards. Simon From marka at isc.org Tue Jul 29 23:53:35 2014 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:53:35 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:23:27 +1200." <004601cfab84$19ef4e20$4dcdea60$@wicks.co.nz> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <CFFD8EAC.67049%Lee@asgard.org> <004601cfab84$19ef4e20$4dcdea60$@wicks.co.nz> Message-ID: <20140729235336.0561F1B024A5@rock.dv.isc.org> In message <004601cfab84$19ef4e20$4dcdea60$@wicks.co.nz>, "Tony Wicks" writes: > >>5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck. > > > >At least Xbox ONE prefers IPv6. > >PS4 can, it just doesn't yet. > >Maybe Kiwis don't play enough games for Sony to care? > > Few CPE routers support native v6 (we are a low cost, BYO router ISP) Actually they are becoming much more common and the additional cost is not that much, basically the cost of the better WiFi radios. If you make IPv6 available and recommend that people buy a IPv6 capable router next time they upgrade they will switch over. You won't find IPv6 in 802.11[bg] only routers but it is in the ones with newer WiFi radios. e.g. NETGEAR WNDR3800 N600 is AUD$80 [mwave.com.au] + shipping and supports IPv6. The price point has come down dramatically from several years ago. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From vristevs at ramapo.edu Wed Jul 30 00:30:28 2014 From: vristevs at ramapo.edu (vristevs at ramapo.edu) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <11986_1406674900_53D827D4_11986_4242_1_20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <11986_1406674900_53D827D4_11986_4242_1_20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> Message-ID: <201407300030.061433@msg-1.mail.ramapo.edu> The 6880 has a single fixed Sup 2T. I believe you meant the 6807. That's what we are looking at to replace our 6500s. There currently are no high density 10G cards out for the 6807 but our account rep tells us a 32 port 1/10G SFP+ line card is coming out in December. If it weren't for this new line card, we would probably lean toward a different solution. From bill at herrin.us Wed Jul 30 00:57:33 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:57:33 -0400 Subject: On a future of open settlement free peering In-Reply-To: <53D82D1D.70206@bennett.com> References: <CAP-guGU6PJxp9Gd9te5MTYxRG5Z=jyuCPrS_nEEJJMe2niqBUw@mail.gmail.com> <53D81E6C.4040609@bennett.com> <CAP-guGWJNKirB_4YnCVdAoWLSMxL5nnoUdXDqKvQKRiGc5W3vg@mail.gmail.com> <53D82D1D.70206@bennett.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGWKfNAczd0dvxAf6J_yUWkNuhFveMsXA29msGGLrEuxLA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote: > So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" before > the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing an unlikely > outcome? I wasn't positing any specific government action. I opine only that the current behavior is likely to result in one, that the current peering holdouts are unlikely to find such action preferable to open peering, and that a voluntary practice of open peering stands a better chance of keeping the FCC at bay than any less severe change to current practices that's obvious to me. Unless the ship has already sailed. Voluntary open peering likely could have kept the FCC at bay, but it's not always obvious to me when something is too late. > BTW, I'm not a lobbyist, As it turns out, neither am I! ;) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 30 02:56:29 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:56:29 -0500 Subject: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity In-Reply-To: <XdEQ1o01J1cZc5601dESB4> References: <CAHnQ7e+FQeSsdjgkX7aTh0rYC2SQ8WvmqEicKu4VZX52rFQbdQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56068.1000409@bennett.com> <XdEQ1o01J1cZc5601dESB4> Message-ID: <53D85EDD.6060409@cox.net> Remembering the things (which had to do with network operations) that I go banned for. One wonders why I felt bad about it, NANOG = NANAE us a slur on NANAE. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 30 04:52:50 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:52:50 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVYrdOtJgJdccOHKpKLGzXPf48R7gDBAJwhBj=wYo9WOQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <2D87E405-A6E2-4C45-B221-828701D915B5@delong.com> <CAP-guGVYrdOtJgJdccOHKpKLGzXPf48R7gDBAJwhBj=wYo9WOQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <32773960-8A05-4378-93B7-517C4CA8CD40@delong.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not >> being supplied a globally unique address? Really? > > Hi Owen, > > I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few would > notice or care. So long as the ISP has an alternative available for > those who do care (such as an existing static IP request mechanism) > CGNs are low-risk from a customer-acceptance position. > Sure, but I didn’t ask the question of the general public… I asked it of the people on this list. I suspect most of the membership of this list would opt out of CGN one way or another. In my case, my provider is IPv6 capable and I’d simply move my tunnels from IPv4 to IPv6 rather than subject myself to CGN if necessary. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 30 05:22:24 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:22:24 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> Message-ID: <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: > > In message <20140729225352.GO7836 at hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes: >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: >>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable >>> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless >>> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's >>> internet access) >> >> Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so >> that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is >> probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the >> broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. > > Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as > the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you > need to do from day 1. That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. Though it will be an increasing percentage over time. Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the additional benefit that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. > >>> 3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just >>> works. >> >> More precisely: you don't hear from 99.99% of customers, regardless of >> whether or not they notice problems that are caused by CGNAT. People put up >> with some *really* bad stuff sometimes without mentioning it to their >> service provider. > > Like modems that introduce 2 second queuing delays the moment you > have a upstream transfer like a icloud backup. Buffer @!#$!@#$! > bloat! Among other things. 99.99% of customers don’t now how to isolate the fault of such a thing to their ISP or how to properly complain about it in my experience. For the 0.01% who do, 99% of them don’t know how to get past the ISP’s first-line “let’s reboot your modem and when you call back afterwards, you won’t be my problem any more”. Owen From nanog at studio442.com.au Wed Jul 30 05:42:13 2014 From: nanog at studio442.com.au (Julien Goodwin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:42:13 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> Message-ID: <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> On 29/07/14 22:22, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: >> In message <20140729225352.GO7836 at hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes: >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: >>>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable >>>> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless >>>> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's >>>> internet access) >>> >>> Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so >>> that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is >>> probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the >>> broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. >> >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as >> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you >> need to do from day 1. > > That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. > > Though it will be an increasing percentage over time. > > Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the additional benefit > that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Being on the content provider side I don't know the actual percentages in practice, but in the NANOG region you've got Google/Youtube, NetFlix, Akamai & Facebook all having a significant amount of their services v6 native. I'd be very surprised if these four together weren't a majority of any consumer-facing network's traffic in peak times. From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 05:53:32 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 05:53:32 +0000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAMfXtQwmpEqBk9CKRq2MpW15tRcuicZ_3DoJUsTBAM4=50319A@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: ..... >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as >> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you >> need to do from day 1. > > That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. For the 99.99% of the users who believe that facebook and twitter *are* the internet, at least facebook is IPv6 enabled. 50.00%(*)! Yes, I think we can all stipulate that those participating on this list are different, and have different expectations, and different capabilities, than those other 99.99%. Gary (*) If we are going to make up statistics, four significant digits looks better than one. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 06:47:05 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:47:05 +0200 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407300847.09046.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 21, 2014 07:28:22 PM Scott Helms wrote: > I'll be watching to see how well this roll out goes. If > they didn't re-engineer their splits (or plan for > symmetrical from the beginning) they could run into some > problems because the total speed on a GPON port is > asymmetrical, about 2.5 gbps down to 1.25 gbps up. Symmetrical would be tough to do unless you're doing Active- E. Then again, I haven't been following PON in the last two years, so maybe they have a solution now. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/798acf23/attachment.pgp> From marka at isc.org Wed Jul 30 06:56:40 2014 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:56:40 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 05:53:32 +0000." <CAMfXtQwmpEqBk9CKRq2MpW15tRcuicZ_3DoJUsTBAM4=50319A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <CAMfXtQwmpEqBk9CKRq2MpW15tRcuicZ_3DoJUsTBAM4=50319A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140730065640.512D51B0F082@rock.dv.isc.org> In message <CAMfXtQwmpEqBk9CKRq2MpW15tRcuicZ_3DoJUsTBAM4=50319A at mail.gmail.com>, Gary Buhrmaster writes: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: > ..... > >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as > >> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you > >> need to do from day 1. > > > > That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. > > For the 99.99% of the users who believe that facebook and twitter > *are* the internet, at least facebook is IPv6 enabled. 50.00%(*)! > > Yes, I think we can all stipulate that those participating > on this list are different, and have different expectations, > and different capabilities, than those other 99.99%. > > Gary > > (*) If we are going to make up statistics, four significant > digits looks better than one. Enable IPv6 at home and measure the traffic. I did, which is why I say > 50%. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 07:16:28 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:16:28 +0200 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbWj9wT_OJkV2AS0ekOCzbL3YEQBhr3qTwBOENU2XzNm9g@mail.gmail.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAAAwwbWj9wT_OJkV2AS0ekOCzbL3YEQBhr3qTwBOENU2XzNm9g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407300916.28662.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 02:27:01 AM Jimmy Hess wrote: > It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, > CNN, Walmart, Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, > Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, > Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com, Pinterest, > Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a > little club and said > "OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for > transit anymore; your customers want our stuff and will > consider their internet service DOWN if they can't get > it. You are going to pay us for a fast lane to our > content now. If you want it, please start sending us > your bids, now." I almost wrote this a few weeks ago but decided not to - but I've been saying it for a while now and maybe I'll write it now. The bridge between content owners and their customers is service providers. Those service providers are either wholesale transit providers or consumer service providers. Commercial trends have been moving farther and farther away from, "How much bandwidth do you want to buy?" to, "How many Tv channels, voice minutes and cloud recording can I get?", particularly in much more developed markets. We see evidence on this in the current transit prices being so low that now selling in Gbps as a minimum might be the only way to survive. (very) Slowly but (very) surely, the service provider (wholesale or consumer) is becoming a less visible part of the chain (well, unless we are in the news talking about de- peering or how much grief Netflix are causing us this week), because eyeballs just want their "House of Cards". There really is very little reason why certain major content owners and providers who operate their own IP networks cannot turn around and become full-blown wholesale ISP's (and in some cases, consumer ISP's). As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act together and play nice, before we all get run over by the content owners. They will not hesitate to take us out of the equation the first chance they get. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/f13f68f3/attachment.pgp> From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 07:53:23 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:53:23 +0200 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> Message-ID: <201407300953.27538.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 04:21:32 AM Corey Touchet wrote: > Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. > Opinions on those are equally welcome as alternatives, > but I’d love to hear from those with personal > experiences today vs sales people trying to tell me it > would route the world :) Yep, MX480/960 and ASR9006/9010 are the way to go if you're looking at decent (Intel-based) CPU's, good performance and good 10Gbps/100Gbps port density, incuding combinations thereof. 40Gbps might be a little tricky on these boxes; for that, looking at Ethernet switches (Nexus, C6880, Juniper EX) are better options. We don't mess around with 40Gbps - it's 10Gbps or 100Gbps :-). IOS XR on the CRS and ASR9000 is based on QNX, which suffers from being only a 32-bit kernel. So even if the hardware will ship with >4GB of RAM, the OS will only see 4GB (I have 12GB in my CRS's and 8GB on my ASR9001's). IOS XR on the NCS runs on Linux, which removes the memory limitation, but it's not clear whether that philosophy will make it down to earlier IOS XR platforms (CRS, ASR9000). Whatever the case, I've been following Blackberry for a while on this, and it doesn't seem like they have any plans to release a 64-bit version of QNX. AFAIK, their phones are all 32-bit, so... Junos has no issue seeing 32GB of RAM (their currently highest RAM on their RE's), as it's a properly 64-bit OS. That said, some of the applications that run within Junos (notably "rpd") are still playing catch-up in terms of how much memory it can "see", and how well it can use the multiple cores present on the RE's. A lot of work is going on in this area, and generally, the later the Junos code you run, the more enhancements to the software you will see (and the accompanying bugs, hehe). I've been testing Junos 14.1R1 in production on a couple of MX80's and MX480's for some weeks now. No issues to report (yet). Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/a33d4087/attachment.pgp> From bernat at luffy.cx Wed Jul 30 09:12:44 2014 From: bernat at luffy.cx (Vincent Bernat) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:12:44 +0200 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <201407300953.27538.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> (Mark Tinka's message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:53:23 +0200") References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <201407300953.27538.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <m3silji50z.fsf@neo.luffy.cx> ❦ 30 juillet 2014 09:53 +0200, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> : > IOS XR on the CRS and ASR9000 is based on QNX, which suffers > from being only a 32-bit kernel. So even if the hardware > will ship with >4GB of RAM, the OS will only see 4GB (I have > 12GB in my CRS's and 8GB on my ASR9001's). What's the point of shipping more memory then? Maybe the OS can only address 4GB per process but is able to use up to 64GB in total (PAE)? -- Use self-identifying input. Allow defaults. Echo both on output. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 09:18:43 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:18:43 +0200 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <m3silji50z.fsf@neo.luffy.cx> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <201407300953.27538.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <m3silji50z.fsf@neo.luffy.cx> Message-ID: <201407301118.44455.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:12:44 AM Vincent Bernat wrote: > What's the point of shipping more memory then? Maybe the > OS can only address 4GB per process but is able to use > up to 64GB in total (PAE)? That was one argument from Cisco - that when the software catches up, they might be able to compartmentalize so that applications gain access to it individually. I didn't grill them too much on this, as we use IOS XR in the core mostly (CRS), and we don't need RAM too much since IPv4 is switched on MPLS labels, negating the need to hold a full IPv4 table on the routers. That said, I can see a use-case where the additional RAM on the CRS and ASR9000 can make sense if IOS XR is allowed to run separate VM's on the same control plane. I know that iso one of the ideas behind the NCS, but not sure whether it will be added to the CRS and ASR9000. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/30fe4257/attachment.pgp> From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Wed Jul 30 10:50:17 2014 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:50:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World Message-ID: <201407301050.LAA15754@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> > Commercial trends have been moving farther and farther away > from, "How much bandwidth do you want to buy?" to, "How many > Tv channels, voice minutes and cloud recording can I get?", > particularly in much more developed markets Internet should be utility, many providing it don't wnat to be a utility and so try doing other services usually best left to specialists > As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act > together and play nice, before we all get run over by the > content owners Yes, I like to remind those engaging in peering wars and charging for access users to be careful when creating reasons for others to become their competition As a broadcaster we send our content direct to users over the air, there is opportunity in not making us do so for internet too (though it already happens, here in the UK Sky TV are a large ISP) brandon From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Jul 30 12:26:05 2014 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <201407301050.LAA15754@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201407301050.LAA15754@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <53D8E45D.4070508@meetinghouse.net> Brandon Butterworth <brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > Yes, I like to remind those engaging in peering wars and charging for > access users to be careful when creating reasons for others to become > their competition > > As a broadcaster we send our content direct to users over the air, > there is opportunity in not making us do so for internet too (though > it already happens, here in the UK Sky TV are a large ISP) > > So, out of curiosity, how does BBC's user base split out between: - traditional over-the-air reception, - cable, - satellite (is their a UK equivalent of DishTV), - Internet? I'm pretty sure that in most US major markets broadcasters primarily reach their subscribers over cable these days - with those cable providers also providing subscribers' Internet access. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 12:34:09 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:34:09 +0200 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <201407301050.LAA15754@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201407301050.LAA15754@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <201407301434.13438.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:50:17 PM Brandon Butterworth wrote: > Internet should be utility, many providing it don't wnat > to be a utility and so try doing other services usually > best left to specialists When we did FTTH at $previous_employer, it really was the first time an operator (albeit a competitive) was bundling voice, video and data on an end-to-end fibre connection to the home (even the incumbent's solution was FTTB, and then copper (Ethernet or VDSL) to the home. To make the service more utilitarian, we didn't do the selling or marketing. We left it to our partner (the Tv network, primarily a satellite Tv provider) to sell it, brand it their own, e.t.c. We were happy with just a "Powered By" at the bottom of their web site or sales material. Made sense, since they had the customer base, market visibility, back-end after-sales support and cash in the bank to do so. Their bundling made sense to customers: - Tv channels were packaged based on customer demographics. - Voice plans were simple. - Internet access was either 6Mbps, 12Mbps or 24Mbps, with an option to "boost" ("boost" is easier for Joe Blog to understand than "burst") to 50Mbps via a web tool the customer can use at their discretion. - Multi-screen view options inside the home. - How many simultaneous live streams can you view while you record others. And that was it. As a provider, we ensured that there was sufficient capacity delivered to each home to make the above possible. In this case, it was 100Mbps (GPON), but could have also been 1Gbps (Active-E). We realized that customers didn't care how much bandwidth was required to watch their favorite channel in HD. They just wanted to watch their favorite channel in HD. How it all works is not their problem, and they don't want to know or care to be impressed by the details. What would drive network expansion would be what services customers wanted. If customers suddenly wanted 100% of their channels in HD, at 1080p, they would ask for and pay for that. If it means delivering 1Gbps to every home to do that, so be it; it was never going to become the customer's problem. They just want what they want, and more often than not, they don't want bandwidth (which is what ISP's typically know how to sell) - they just don't want video/audio buffering. Sounds like the same thing, but from a customer's point of view, it's not the same thing. If, as service providers, we can get ourselves to that point (either at a corporate level or with external help from policy and legislation), Internet will, thus, have become a utility. Your guess is as good as mine if that will ever happen. And given that content owners are the ones "who appear" most interested in the customer experience, 21st century traditional ISP's need to watch their backs. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/70b8f02b/attachment.pgp> From disordr at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 23:16:48 2014 From: disordr at gmail.com (Philip) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:16:48 -0700 Subject: BGP communities question Message-ID: <CAMSne7Bs6FvondkJr11n0H1QgKWZknG5HVUT+485qsgbEaX5wA@mail.gmail.com> Hello Nanog, I'm fairly new to running my employers multihomed BGP network with our own ASN. Things have been relatively smooth and stable for the past few months. We have 2 upstream ISP's giving us full routes. We have a single link to each provider, but I run two BGP sessions over that single link so I can have router redundancy. My routers are run in an active-passive configuration. With ISP-A, they have configured our 2 BGP sessions such that the secondary session (our passive router), although the BGP session is up, no traffic is directed there unless the primary router's BGP session goes away. This prevents asymmetric routing problems with my active/passive config. ISP-A attributes this config to the fact that we have 2 sessions, but on the same router, with a config on their router that looks like this: #show <http://r04.lsanca03.us.bb#show> running-config interface tenGigE 0/1/0/7 interface TenGigE0/1/0/7 description: 10GbE service-policy input cust1-in service-policy output cust1-out ipv4 address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.252 ipv4 address xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy 255.255.255.252 secondary ipv4 verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-self-ping ISP-B says they aren't able to do this active/passive config without us getting 2 physical links (kind of opposite what ISP-A is saying) They recommend that we use local pref and communities to direct traffic to our primary BGP session and only using the secondary session if the primary fails. Does that recommendation make sense? Will setting the local pref via ISP-B community strings accomplish this active/passive traffic split that I'm looking for? Looking through the documentation on this providers site about which community string needs to be set, it seems like I just need to make the primary router BGP session community string higher than the default, and the passive router BGP session community string lower than the default and that will get me the desired behavior. Is that the proper way of achieving the traffic flows for active / passive config from provider to my gear? Thank you, Philip From jwalter at weebly.com Wed Jul 30 00:01:59 2014 From: jwalter at weebly.com (Jeff Walter) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:01:59 -0700 Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. In-Reply-To: <CAJcK4gputiCQaKfKj2P890+9XM_hpx7SYfVtx=3n2UMiSZF4SA@mail.gmail.com> References: <aaf31178b52247ff987f42afb9708f49@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> <53266209fb3041f39773a3b2e0afcef1@exch2013-1.hq.nac.net> <53D6B678.3070200@ninjabadger.net> <CAJcK4gputiCQaKfKj2P890+9XM_hpx7SYfVtx=3n2UMiSZF4SA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAAGWaEeF3LawyK5n5U6FAQdeUvXNcfBG6-skayic_m_yz2ojeg@mail.gmail.com> We also have a Solid Optics CWDM meter and it does the job quite nicely. It feels solid (haha...) and is relatively cheap. -- Jeff Walter On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Neil Davidson <neil at knd.org> wrote: > We have the Solid Optics DWDM and CWDM power meters. Simple, inexpensive > and works well ... > http://www.solid-optics.com/category/cwdm-dwdm/power-meter ... n > > > > -- > > K. Neil Davidson > +1-720-258-6345 > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hill <tom at ninjabadger.net> wrote: > > > On 28/07/14 19:33, Timothy Kaufman wrote: > > > >> Also maybe the ODPM-48. > >> > > > > I've got the CWDM version of this, and it does the job. Haven't explored > > the test result downloading/archiving features (didn't expect them to > work > > with Linux anyway) but overall it was very helpful for measuring loss > > across various passive muxes (where DDM wasn't available). > > > > Tom > > > From mysidia at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 13:06:55 2014 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:06:55 -0500 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> Message-ID: <CAAAwwbXHdDpJ7p2WCxaz-8dx9wLqM-LRawnKGG0Hxsz4V05sGA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Simon Lockhart <simon at slimey.org> wrote: > On Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:21:32AM +0000, Corey Touchet wrote: >> Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. Opinions on those are > Or, protect your existing investment in 6500 and replace the SUP720 with the > SUP2T. You can then deploy the WS-X6904-40G-XL blades which give you 4 * 40G I would generally suggest you look at it as a long term decision, at least before jumping to the next incremental (modest increase) on the upgrade treadmill. It depends on whether the 6500 is still a perfect match for your network other than the prefix limit. Your vendor should think of your equipment as an "investment" to be protected, by exploiting your feelings of loss aversion, but the upgrade treadmill is a trap..... next thing you know, you will have to replace the chassis, then you will need new linecards...... Keep in mind most of the MX series makes the 6500 look like a 5 port linksys home router, when it comes to carrying around and managing large BGP tables; both in terms of prefix capacity, speed, the policy/filtering/configuration management functionality of the OS, and how they will take the route update "beating" during setup of new multiple BGP sessions... The SUP2T is about a 100% increase in TCAM size, but still pretty limited in terms of system resources. You can also "protect" your investment if appropriate by taking this late 1990s gear off your BGP edge, or otherwise recruiting it for a role which it is more suited for in this day and age, where it is not handling full tables and thus the feeble amount of FIB size, CPU, memory are no potential hinderance now or on the next 10 years. The ability to link up 40G ports did not seem terribly useful when it would all be unsafely oversubscribed. > > You can then look to migrate onto the 6880 chassis which gives you a faster > backplane, whilst retaining compatibility with existing linecards. > > Simon -- -JH From me at geordish.org Wed Jul 30 13:33:39 2014 From: me at geordish.org (Dave Bell) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:33:39 +0100 Subject: BGP communities question In-Reply-To: <CAMSne7Bs6FvondkJr11n0H1QgKWZknG5HVUT+485qsgbEaX5wA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMSne7Bs6FvondkJr11n0H1QgKWZknG5HVUT+485qsgbEaX5wA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CACXVQYCtrsU6nb3nBiaXbAwy_=Ro7yj1pr0PfeasjJ-QGpRXnQ@mail.gmail.com> This sounds perfectly acceptable. Your ISP-B should have a published list of communities that do different things. You need to choose the specific community to get the behaviour you are after. For example you can see a list of what Level3 accept from customers about half way down here: http://onesc.net/communities/as3356/. >From them you may choose 3356:70 and 3356:90. Arbitrarily choosing a community may break things. For example, you probably would not want to use 3356:9999. You will also need to remember to set the local pref on your side of the link to ensure that you don't get asymmetric traffic flows. Be careful with BGP. You can break a lot of things if you don't know what you are doing. Regards, Dave On 30 July 2014 00:16, Philip <disordr at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Nanog, > > I'm fairly new to running my employers multihomed BGP network with our own > ASN. > Things have been relatively smooth and stable for the past few months. > > We have 2 upstream ISP's giving us full routes. > We have a single link to each provider, but I run two BGP sessions over > that single link so I can have router redundancy. My routers are run in an > active-passive configuration. > > With ISP-A, they have configured our 2 BGP sessions such that the secondary > session (our passive router), although the BGP session is up, no traffic is > directed there unless the primary router's BGP session goes away. This > prevents asymmetric routing problems with my active/passive config. > ISP-A attributes this config to the fact that we have 2 sessions, but on > the same router, with a config on their router that looks like this: > #show <http://r04.lsanca03.us.bb#show> running-config interface tenGigE > 0/1/0/7 > interface TenGigE0/1/0/7 > description: 10GbE > service-policy input cust1-in > service-policy output cust1-out > ipv4 address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.252 > ipv4 address xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy 255.255.255.252 secondary > ipv4 verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-self-ping > > > ISP-B says they aren't able to do this active/passive config without us > getting 2 physical links (kind of opposite what ISP-A is saying) > They recommend that we use local pref and communities to direct traffic to > our primary BGP session and only using the secondary session if the primary > fails. > > Does that recommendation make sense? Will setting the local pref via ISP-B > community strings accomplish this active/passive traffic split that I'm > looking for? > > Looking through the documentation on this providers site about which > community string needs to be set, it seems like I just need to make the > primary router BGP session community string higher than the default, and > the passive router BGP session community string lower than the default and > that will get me the desired behavior. > > Is that the proper way of achieving the traffic flows for active / passive > config from provider to my gear? > > Thank you, > > Philip From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 13:40:28 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:40:28 +0200 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXHdDpJ7p2WCxaz-8dx9wLqM-LRawnKGG0Hxsz4V05sGA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> <CAAAwwbXHdDpJ7p2WCxaz-8dx9wLqM-LRawnKGG0Hxsz4V05sGA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201407301540.31787.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 03:06:55 PM Jimmy Hess wrote: > I would generally suggest you look at it as a long term > decision, at least before jumping to the next > incremental (modest increase) on the upgrade treadmill. > It depends on whether the 6500 is still a perfect match > for your network other than the prefix limit. Your > vendor should think of your equipment as an "investment" > to be protected, by exploiting your feelings of loss > aversion, but the upgrade treadmill is a trap..... > next thing you know, you will have to replace the > chassis, then you will need new linecards...... Next up the road are the 6800's. Essentially SUP-2T's, so you get software parity Day One, but still the same supervisor module. We are running 6880's (which are the fixed SUP-2T's, but with modular line cards), but only a core switching (Layer 2 Ethernet) role. Great port density since the 10Gbps ports are now SFP+, but oversubscribed line cards 2:1, since each slot is 80Gbps, but the line card comes with 16x 10Gbps ports. You can disable oversubscription and go into performance mode, which disables half the ports on the line card - we do that. IP-/MPLS-wise, whatever you can do on the 6500 you can do on the 6800, but I can't say for sure as we're running them as switches. That said, if your goal is IP, just consider the ASR9000, MX, and whatever else other vendors can do in this space. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/e659a58d/attachment.pgp> From saku at ytti.fi Wed Jul 30 13:43:33 2014 From: saku at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:43:33 +0300 Subject: Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXHdDpJ7p2WCxaz-8dx9wLqM-LRawnKGG0Hxsz4V05sGA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CFFC6128.10BFA%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <20140729225635.GA26520@virtual.bogons.net> <CAAAwwbXHdDpJ7p2WCxaz-8dx9wLqM-LRawnKGG0Hxsz4V05sGA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140730134333.GA18645@pob.ytti.fi> On (2014-07-30 08:06 -0500), Jimmy Hess wrote: > Keep in mind most of the MX series makes the 6500 look like a 5 port > linksys home router, when it comes to carrying around and managing > large BGP tables; both in terms of prefix capacity, speed, the > policy/filtering/configuration management functionality of the OS, > and how they will take the route update "beating" during setup of > new multiple BGP sessions... > > The SUP2T is about a 100% increase in TCAM size, but still > pretty limited in terms of system resources. > > You can also "protect" your investment if appropriate by taking this > late 1990s gear off your BGP edge, or otherwise recruiting it for a > role which it is more suited for in this day and age, where it is > not handling full tables and thus the feeble amount of FIB size, CPU, > memory are no potential hinderance now or on the next 10 years. These seem cute anecdotes but I'm not sure how appropriate they are. CAT6880 is XEON control-plane, and if we compare MX80 and RSP720, where RSP720 has slightly lower performance CPU, RSP720 out-performs MX80 (and MX104) in BGP convergence and BGP scale. Certainly if you compare SUP720 to XEON MX960, your anecdote is accurate. JunOS is architecturally quite similar to IOS-XE, single fat process (iosd, rpd) doing all the relevant work, running on modern control-plane (linux, freebsd). One advantage to iosd is, that it's actually multithreaded unlike rpd. Obviously Sup2T/6880 2M FIB is limited, but what is JNPR MX scale? Trio has 256MB RLDRAM for everything, looking at my MX IPv4 FIB memory consumption divided by entry size, it pegs IPv4 entry to 77B (seems massive), which would translate to 3.5M IPv4 FIB upper bound, if nothing else is there. Realistically, I don't think JNPR promises anywhere near this. So the FIB scale may be pretty similar in both. So I don't think FIB, control-plane or software are selling-points here. Where MX shines, is deep services, with CAT you have relatively dumb ASIC, while MX is capable for very deep services with its NPU. If you can reuse existing LC and skill investment while living with limited forwarding-plane functionality offered, it seems entirely sensible solution, and in no way more '90s technology' than MX. If you need deep services, of course it's wrong box, then MX or ASR9k is what you should be looking at. -- ++ytti From phulshof at aimvalley.nl Wed Jul 30 13:57:18 2014 From: phulshof at aimvalley.nl (Pieter Hulshoff) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:57:18 +0200 Subject: FW: Public Notice: FCC asks for comments on network security In-Reply-To: <CFFA81E7.DB47E%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> References: <CFFA81E7.DB47E%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <53D8F9BE.3040100@aimvalley.nl> On 27-07-14 16:15, Livingood, Jason wrote: > FYI. The U.S. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a Public Notice on Friday (copied below), seeking comment on the “implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations”. > > Comments are due by September 26. Some folks here may wish to send the FCC comments on this, especially areas pertaining to preventing IP address spoofing. Interesting RFCs. Out of curiosity: do (many) routers already support the necessary ingress filter features to support these RFCs? Kind regards, Pieter Hulshoff From ahebert at pubnix.net Wed Jul 30 15:16:07 2014 From: ahebert at pubnix.net (Alain Hebert) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:16:07 -0400 Subject: FW: Public Notice: FCC asks for comments on network security In-Reply-To: <53D8F9BE.3040100@aimvalley.nl> References: <CFFA81E7.DB47E%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <53D8F9BE.3040100@aimvalley.nl> Message-ID: <53D90C37.20109@pubnix.net> Should. It is a few million$ in man hours thou. ( Not necessary spent, but budgeted ) And still no BCP38 recommendation. I wonder: 1. If they taught of it; 2. What was their process to not include it; Oh well. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert at pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 07/30/14 09:57, Pieter Hulshoff wrote: > On 27-07-14 16:15, Livingood, Jason wrote: >> FYI. The U.S. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a >> Public Notice on Friday (copied below), seeking comment on the >> “implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations”. >> >> Comments are due by September 26. Some folks here may wish to send >> the FCC comments on this, especially areas pertaining to preventing >> IP address spoofing. > > > Interesting RFCs. Out of curiosity: do (many) routers already support > the necessary ingress filter features to support these RFCs? > > Kind regards, > > Pieter Hulshoff > > > From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jul 30 15:28:57 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:57 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?Call_for_Nominations_to_ARIN_AC_and_ARIN_Board_=96_Remin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?der?= References: <53D90880.8020502@arin.net> Message-ID: <D52EF367-09A8-4503-BBBC-DAF808282A86@corp.arin.net> NANOGers - Anyone can become a member of the ARIN Board or ARIN AC - if you are interested, please have an ARIN Member nominate you today for the upcoming ARIN Elections. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>> Subject: [arin-announce] Call for Nominations – Reminder Date: July 30, 2014 at 11:00:16 AM EDT To: <arin-announce at arin.net<mailto:arin-announce at arin.net>> Nominations close on 20 August 2014 for candidates for the upcoming ARIN election to fill two seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees and seven seats on the Advisory Council (AC). We are also seeking nominations for one seat on the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) which will be appointed by the Board of Trustees. Elections will be held in October, and the winning candidates will be seated on 31 December 2014. Who can submit a nomination? You must be a Trustee or an ARIN General Member in Good Standing to make nominations for the Board and Advisory Council. However, those nominated do not need to be ARIN members. Self-nominations from General Members in Good Standing are permitted. Any individual, regardless of ARIN membership status, may self-nominate or nominate one or more candidates for any open NRO NC position. For complete details on the nomination process, visit the ARIN Election System Instructions page at: https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/instructions.html#nominate Ready to submit a nomination? Go to: https://www.arin.net/public/election/ All nominations for the Board and AC elections will be reviewed by the Nomination Committee (NomCom). For more NomCom information, see the NomCom Charter at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/committeecharters.html#nomcom Please direct any questions to info at arin.net. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Announce You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 30 15:45:21 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:45:21 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> Message-ID: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> The only actual residential data I can offer is my own. I am fully dual stack and about 40% of my traffic is IPv6. I am a netflix subscriber, but also an amazon prime member. I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would make a significant difference. Other than amazon and my financial institutions and Kaiser, living without IPv4 wouldn't actually pose a hardship as near as I can tell from my day without v4 experiment on June 6. I know Kaiser is working on it. Amazon apparently recently hired Yuri Rich to work on their issues. So that would leave my financial institutions. I think we are probably less than 5 years from residential IPv4 becoming a service that carries a surcharge, if available. Owen > On Jul 29, 2014, at 22:42, Julien Goodwin <nanog at studio442.com.au> wrote: > >> On 29/07/14 22:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: >>> In message <20140729225352.GO7836 at hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: >>>>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable >>>>> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless >>>>> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's >>>>> internet access) >>>> >>>> Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so >>>> that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is >>>> probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the >>>> broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. >>> >>> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as >>> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you >>> need to do from day 1. >> >> That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. >> >> Though it will be an increasing percentage over time. >> >> Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the additional benefit >> that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. > > Being on the content provider side I don't know the actual percentages > in practice, but in the NANOG region you've got Google/Youtube, NetFlix, > Akamai & Facebook all having a significant amount of their services v6 > native. > > I'd be very surprised if these four together weren't a majority of any > consumer-facing network's traffic in peak times. From corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com Wed Jul 30 16:09:42 2014 From: corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com (Corey Touchet) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:09:42 +0000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> Message-ID: <CFFE71CE.113FF%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> There¹s still a lot of websites that are not with the times. No ipv6 on CNN, FOX, or NBC news websites. Slashdot.org shame on you! Comcast and AT&T work, but not Verizon. No surprise there. Power company nope. I think CGN is fine for 99% of customers out there. Until the iPhone came out Verizon Wireless had natted all their blackberry customers and saved million¹s of IP¹s. Then Apple and Google blew a hole into that plan. Then again I¹m for IPv4 just running out and finally pushing people to adopt. The US Govt has done a better job of moving to IPv6 than private industry which frankly is amazing all things considered. Comcast is pushing over 1TBPS of IPv6 traffic, but I¹m sure that¹s mainly video from Youtube and Netflix. On 7/30/14, 9:45 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote: >The only actual residential data I can offer is my own. I am fully dual >stack and about 40% of my traffic is IPv6. I am a netflix subscriber, but >also an amazon prime member. > >I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it >would make a significant difference. > >Other than amazon and my financial institutions and Kaiser, living >without IPv4 wouldn't actually pose a hardship as near as I can tell from >my day without v4 experiment on June 6. > >I know Kaiser is working on it. Amazon apparently recently hired Yuri >Rich to work on their issues. So that would leave my financial >institutions. > >I think we are probably less than 5 years from residential IPv4 becoming >a service that carries a surcharge, if available. > >Owen > > >> On Jul 29, 2014, at 22:42, Julien Goodwin <nanog at studio442.com.au> >>wrote: >> >>> On 29/07/14 22:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: >>>> In message <20140729225352.GO7836 at hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes: >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: >>>>>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a >>>>>>viable >>>>>> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate >>>>>>clueless >>>>>> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for >>>>>>today's >>>>>> internet access) >>>>> >>>>> Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer >>>>>base, so >>>>> that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, >>>>>CGNAT is >>>>> probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst >>>>>the >>>>> broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. >>>> >>>> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as >>>> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you >>>> need to do from day 1. >>> >>> That would be nice, but I¹m not 100% convinced that it is true. >>> >>> Though it will be an increasing percentage over time. >>> >>> Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the >>>additional benefit >>> that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the >>>problem. >> >> Being on the content provider side I don't know the actual percentages >> in practice, but in the NANOG region you've got Google/Youtube, NetFlix, >> Akamai & Facebook all having a significant amount of their services v6 >> native. >> >> I'd be very surprised if these four together weren't a majority of any >> consumer-facing network's traffic in peak times. From cma at cmadams.net Wed Jul 30 16:16:57 2014 From: cma at cmadams.net (Chris Adams) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:16:57 -0500 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CFFE71CE.113FF%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> References: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <CFFE71CE.113FF%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> Message-ID: <20140730161657.GA25370@cmadams.net> Once upon a time, Corey Touchet <corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com> said: > Comcast is pushing over 1TBPS of IPv6 traffic, but I¹m sure that¹s mainly > video from Youtube and Netflix. One thing to remember about the video services that do support IPv6 is that a lot of end users, even if they have IPv6 in the home, won't see them over IPv6. Many people watch Netflix and such from TV-connected devices like DVD/Blu-Ray players, "smart" TVs, Xboxes, TiVos, etc. Many (most?) of these devices don't support IPv6, and many never will (because they don't get firmware updates much after release). -- Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net> From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 30 16:21:46 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:21:46 -0700 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <201407300916.28662.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CAAAwwbWj9wT_OJkV2AS0ekOCzbL3YEQBhr3qTwBOENU2XzNm9g@mail.gmail.com> <201407300916.28662.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <3472765E-2DEF-430A-A4B3-5C410EE28E12@delong.com> > There really is very little reason why certain major content > owners and providers who operate their own IP networks > cannot turn around and become full-blown wholesale ISP's > (and in some cases, consumer ISP's). > > As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act > together and play nice, before we all get run over by the > content owners. They will not hesitate to take us out of the > equation the first chance they get. Yes and no… The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it. Much of the current consumer ISP infrastructure happens to be owned by content providers that Netflix is competing with. The rest is largely owned by other content providers that are attempting to compete with Netflix _AND_ the other content providers. ($CABLECOs (e.g. Cox, Time Warner, et. al.) in the former case and $TELCOs (e.g. FIOS, uVerse, et. al.) in the latter). In the US, at least, both $CABLECOs and $TELCOs look more like law firms than communications companies if you analyze their business models. They seem to spend most of their time seeking ways to create a regulatory environment that favors them and disadvantages their competition rather than focusing on customer service and innovation to gain better profits. For the most part, their ability to do harm is somewhat limited by the fact that their interests largely run contrary to each other, so you have roughly equal forces fighting for legislation and rulings in roughly opposite directions. Unfortunately, when they agree, it is almost certainly the consumer that loses and loses big. The current situation with Netflix (and other content providers) is one such example. One of the few things they can agree on is that it is easier for them to try and extort money from content producers that compete with them than it is to change their business model to account for the true costs of providing what they promised. One interesting thing about this in my opinion is that the worst consequence if they get their wish (the Slow Lane proposal, as I call it), the worst effect on consumers is an unintended side-effect. It will create an additional set of entry barriers for companies attempting to compete with Netflix and other content providers that have sufficient resources to pay the “exit the slow lane extortion”. So not only is this bad for consumers by raising the cost of their content services by a factor of $ISP_EXTORTION+MARKUP, but it’s also bad for consumers by creating a new barrier to competition in an area of the market that was previously more open. Owen From trejrco at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 16:35:26 2014 From: trejrco at gmail.com (TJ) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:35:26 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> Message-ID: <CALOgxGZ2YcQZY75DUkmJ3POLpzctnuaMB+FHfaxCZa4H-BsoUQ@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > <SNIP> Amazon apparently recently hired Yurie Rich <insert: and John > Spence> to work on their issues. </SNIP> > And Yurie recently posted an opening for an IPv6 Engineer at same ... for any so inclined. /TJ From dougb at dougbarton.us Wed Jul 30 16:43:19 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:19 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <20140730161657.GA25370@cmadams.net> References: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <CFFE71CE.113FF%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> <20140730161657.GA25370@cmadams.net> Message-ID: <53D920A7.9040707@dougbarton.us> On 07/30/2014 09:16 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Corey Touchet <corey.touchet at corp.totalserversolutions.com> said: >> Comcast is pushing over 1TBPS of IPv6 traffic, but I¹m sure that¹s mainly >> video from Youtube and Netflix. > > One thing to remember about the video services that do support IPv6 is > that a lot of end users, even if they have IPv6 in the home, won't see > them over IPv6. Many people watch Netflix and such from TV-connected > devices like DVD/Blu-Ray players, "smart" TVs, Xboxes, TiVos, etc. Many > (most?) of these devices don't support IPv6, and many never will > (because they don't get firmware updates much after release). In the game console market, from what I could see from some quick searches, Xbox and Wii do v6, but PS4 does not. And as time goes on more things will do v6, not less. :) The time for using "$FOO does not support IPv6, so I don't have to enable it" as an excuse is way past over. Doug From fred at cisco.com Wed Jul 30 16:44:41 2014 From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker (fred)) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:44:41 +0000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> Message-ID: <5469ABA6-1DA0-4EF2-A1A9-9CD249C580CA@cisco.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would make a significant difference. Per Microsoft public statements, they are now moving address space allocated them in Brazil to the US to fill a major service shortfall in Azure. They’re not the only kids on the block with that problem, but are perhaps the one most publicly reported. To my way of thinking, having services like that adopt IPv6 and tell their customers that they need to access the service using IPv6 would go a lot farther that residential service in pushing enterprise adoption. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-anderson-siit-dc gives a fairly clever way to make it possible for the service itself to be IPv6-only and yet provide IPv4 access, and preserve IPv4 addresses in the process. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/7dfee992/attachment.pgp> From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jul 30 16:51:23 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:51:23 +0200 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <3472765E-2DEF-430A-A4B3-5C410EE28E12@delong.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <201407300916.28662.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <3472765E-2DEF-430A-A4B3-5C410EE28E12@delong.com> Message-ID: <201407301851.26880.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:21:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > Yes and no… > > The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very > high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy > all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get > permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it. Note I said "...certain major...". For sure, not all content owners have the might or time to become ISP's (whether for themselves or for their customers). But definitely, "certain major" ones do... and we are already seeing bits of that, here and there in the world... I can't predict the future, but if "certain major" content owners/networks find the barriers to entry surmountable, consolidation could close the loop (certainly, if money, skill and effort wasn't my problem, this would be one of my strategies). And if the industry were go this way, I wouldn't expect to see it coming. It would start small. Very small. No big bang announcement or launch... Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/5b5bc948/attachment.pgp> From cb.list6 at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 17:53:59 2014 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:53:59 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <20140730065640.512D51B0F082@rock.dv.isc.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <CAMfXtQwmpEqBk9CKRq2MpW15tRcuicZ_3DoJUsTBAM4=50319A@mail.gmail.com> <20140730065640.512D51B0F082@rock.dv.isc.org> Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQAn_5HXEQNwV7xvGxoV11Tp4Z_iQxxSV2fTXp7FpCTEA@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: > > In message <CAMfXtQwmpEqBk9CKRq2MpW15tRcuicZ_3DoJUsTBAM4=50319A at mail.gmail.com>, Gary Buhrmaster writes: >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: >> ..... >> >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as >> >> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you >> >> need to do from day 1. >> > >> > That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. >> >> For the 99.99% of the users who believe that facebook and twitter >> *are* the internet, at least facebook is IPv6 enabled. 50.00%(*)! >> >> Yes, I think we can all stipulate that those participating >> on this list are different, and have different expectations, >> and different capabilities, than those other 99.99%. >> >> Gary >> >> (*) If we are going to make up statistics, four significant >> digits looks better than one. > > Enable IPv6 at home and measure the traffic. I did, which is why > I say > 50%. > Orange Poland deployed 464XLAT on mobile and is seeing 62% native IPv6 and 38% NAT64 (slide 26) http://www.data.proidea.org.pl/plnog/12edycja/day2/track4/01_ipv6_implementation.pdf I don't have good measurements on this, but i assume the 11 million 464XLAT subscribers on T-Mobile US show a similar profile, possibly higher due to Netflix now supporting IPv6 on Android. CB > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From fred at cisco.com Wed Jul 30 18:41:46 2014 From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker (fred)) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:41:46 +0000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> Message-ID: <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would make a significant difference. Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now; the question is whether their customers tick the box appropriately. Per Microsoft public statements, they are now moving address space allocated them in Brazil to the US to fill a major service shortfall in Azure. They’re not the only kids on the block with that problem, but are perhaps the one most publicly reported. To my way of thinking, having services like that adopt IPv6 and tell their customers that they need to access the service using IPv6 would go a lot farther than residential service in pushing enterprise adoption. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-anderson-siit-dc gives a fairly clever way to make it possible for the service itself to be IPv6-only and yet provide IPv4 access, and preserve IPv4 addresses in the process. If I’m not mistaken, it’s pretty much what Facebook and others like them have implemented, with a view to being internally IPv6-only within a relatively short timeframe. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/a0860e6c/attachment.pgp> From nanog at data102.com Wed Jul 30 19:04:31 2014 From: nanog at data102.com (randal k) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:04:31 -0600 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CANeLk7Rz=ZtHbuhCCLSH6NErNA6N1FTXdgNOCCLeZBFHSa_39w@mail.gmail.com> We peer with Netflix directly on an exchange, and transit Level3, Cogent, HE & TW. In me experience, when our direct peer is down for whatever reason, Netflix prefers Hurricane Electric no matter what - if the route is there, it takes it - then Cogent, then Level3, then TW. I agree that the Netflix team is responsive and easy to work with, and again in my experience, their network team is extremely interested in making things happen (despite what blogs & hearsay ...) Randal On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting > chain of thoughts occurred to me. > > If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given > Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, > even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? > > Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth. > > So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? > > Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would > become... > and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering > fights? > > Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*? > > Cheers, > -- jra > [1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy. > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Wed Jul 30 19:35:52 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:35:52 -0400 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:04:31 -0600." <CANeLk7Rz=ZtHbuhCCLSH6NErNA6N1FTXdgNOCCLeZBFHSa_39w@mail.gmail.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <CANeLk7Rz=ZtHbuhCCLSH6NErNA6N1FTXdgNOCCLeZBFHSa_39w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17339.1406748952@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:04:31 -0600, randal k said: > I agree that the Netflix team is responsive and easy to work with, and > again in my experience, their network team is extremely interested in > making things happen (despite what blogs & hearsay ...) Well, it *is* in their best interests to make sure that every requested packet gets out of Netflix's network (and/or CDN) as fast as possible. :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/7e6670ee/attachment.pgp> From jbrayburn at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 19:45:56 2014 From: jbrayburn at gmail.com (joshua rayburn) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:45:56 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAGvVXhRzfXdS3Gc8s-8N4fg49mLPPz7xucCP0zb-6_7sDdLLQg@mail.gmail.com> You can utilize an ASR 1006 / 1013 with an ESP card for CGN functionality. Starting in 3.10 code you can utilize Bulk Port Allocation to carve out small consecutive port bundles for end users as to not mess up SIP functionsand High Speed Logging to log individual customers ports for law enforcement needs without overrunning your logging server. On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is > the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate > with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations > in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP > address? > From dgolding at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 18:08:44 2014 From: dgolding at gmail.com (Daniel Golding) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: On a future of open settlement free peering Message-ID: <CADn4PSh2+Z+p6Md5fQcg3LK4L-yH7LY24Q1nMpqzWMJvDMj=8Q@mail.gmail.com> I hesitate to respond to Mr. Bennett. But since he has asserted my opinion on this matter... There is no reasonable reading of the early FCC Open Internet proposed rulemaking that would lead to a ban on paid peering. It takes a number of logical leaps and a great deal of inference to even get close to that: the text of the proposed rule-making is crystal clear. I can turn any transit link into a "paid peering" link in about 25 seconds (and only that long because my IOS and JUNOS are rusty) The law professor whose contribution you cite either misrepresented or failed to understand the paper he (in turn) cited regarding MPEG-DASH and congested networks. His inference was that maybe networks really aren't congested and that the problem is the underlying video transmission protocol. The idea is absurd - we've all seen the Backdoor Santa graphs. Whether MPEG-DASH gracefully degrades under significant congestion is another matter entirely, and is orthogonal to this discussion. You seem to paint everyone who disagrees with you as being some sort of cabal. Yet, my agreement with Patrick Gilmore on this issue is far more the result of the extremism of the opposite position. The guiding principle of the internet engineering community has always been to avoid breaking the Internet because it has the effect of hurting everyone - a tragedy of the commons. And yet, some broadband providers are playing a long game of intentional congestion to attempt to reverse the existing content-broadband power paradigm. No one deserves settlement free interconnection and I don't believe it should be universally mandated. However, the ability for carriers and content providers to avoid onerous regulation has long depended on acting responsibly, as is the case in any industry. Causing prolonged pain to your own customers, as some monopolistic broadband providers are doing, is inviting regulation. This is where I do part company with some folks in this community - I think regulation is bad and will hurt us. People say "well it can't get worse" - oh yes, it can. But, Mr. Bennett, your paymasters are driving us to a more comprehensive regulatory regime, whether we like it or not. Mr. Bennett - the reason that everyone believes you are a lobbyist rather than a sincere activist is that a sincere activist (who just happened to be getting paid by the broadband providers) would realize that he is going down a path of greater regulation. If you were sincere, you would find that to be abhorrent. AEI once stood for competition and lower regulatory burdens. Now, you take money to support monopoly providers who are destroying established industry self-regulatory regimes. Shameful. Daniel Golding (speaking for myself, not my employer) From dougb at dougbarton.us Wed Jul 30 22:12:13 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:12:13 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> Message-ID: <53D96DBD.3070601@dougbarton.us> On 07/30/2014 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now Pun intended? :) From marka at isc.org Wed Jul 30 22:55:07 2014 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:55:07 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:12:13 -0700." <53D96DBD.3070601@dougbarton.us> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> <53D96DBD.3070601@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <20140730225507.6350D1B1EACA@rock.dv.isc.org> In message <53D96DBD.3070601 at dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes: > On 07/30/2014 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now > > Pun intended? :) The best thing Amazon could do would be to stop stocking IPv4 only CPE devices. I know this is a hard ask. The second best thing would be to warn that a CPE device was IPv4 only and won't work with the new IPv6 Internet. They could also ship dual stack images for all the Kindle models they have released. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From collin at averysmallbird.com Wed Jul 30 23:17:26 2014 From: collin at averysmallbird.com (Collin Anderson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:17:26 -0400 Subject: Owning a name In-Reply-To: <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> References: <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> <20140627050029.47186.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com> <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> Message-ID: <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the position that the domains are not assets. Press: http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-icann Court Documents: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark at rudholm.com> wrote: > On 06/26/2014 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote: >> >> I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see >>> anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist. >>> >>> Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF >> IRAN, >> et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL) >> > > It seems to me that even if the ccTLD delegations were removed from the > root DNS zone, all sysadmins in Iran would just add the ns.irnic.ir NS > record to their cache, effectively ignoring ICANN. I bet a lot of > sysadmins outside Iran would do the same thing, since it makes sense to > refer to IRNIC for Iranian DNS regardless of any court ruling. > > Similarly, they'd just keep using their current network numbers. It's not > like ARIN would be able to give them to someone else. Nobody would want > them. And a lot of us would continue to route those numbers to Iran. > > Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is > a coordinator, not an authority. > -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C. From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 30 23:35:32 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:35:32 -0700 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <201407301851.26880.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <201407300916.28662.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <3472765E-2DEF-430A-A4B3-5C410EE28E12@delong.com> <201407301851.26880.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <0D5804EF-4A8A-4D6F-9786-BE33CEE0B265@delong.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:21:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Yes and no… >> >> The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very >> high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy >> all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get >> permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it. > > Note I said "...certain major...". For sure, not all > content owners have the might or time to become ISP's > (whether for themselves or for their customers). But > definitely, "certain major" ones do... and we are already > seeing bits of that, here and there in the world... > > I can't predict the future, but if "certain major" content > owners/networks find the barriers to entry surmountable, > consolidation could close the loop (certainly, if money, > skill and effort wasn't my problem, this would be one of my > strategies). In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze Netflix out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by the existing content/ISP conglomerates to do just exactly that, no? If not, then I am completely failing to understand you point. Owen From dougb at dougbarton.us Wed Jul 30 23:44:28 2014 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:44:28 -0700 Subject: Netflix And AT&T Sign Peering Agreement Message-ID: <53D9835C.7060808@dougbarton.us> Seems germane to recent conversations ... Netflix has signed a peering agreement with AT&T that will see the video streaming service pay the ISP for direct connection to its network. Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and Verizon. http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 30 23:39:14 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:39:14 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> Message-ID: <88902F3E-3782-4470-BC51-42DF32BC323D@delong.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred at cisco.com> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: > >> I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would make a significant difference. > > Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now; the question is whether their customers tick the box appropriately. > Owens-MacBook-Pro:toneAC owendelong$ host www.amazon.com www.amazon.com has address 72.21.215.232 Owens-MacBook-Pro:toneAC owendelong$ host www.google.com www.google.com has address 74.125.239.145 www.google.com has address 74.125.239.146 www.google.com has address 74.125.239.148 www.google.com has address 74.125.239.144 www.google.com has address 74.125.239.147 www.google.com has IPv6 address 2607:f8b0:4005:802::1010 It appears to me that they have failed to tick their own box correctly. I was talking about Amazon, not AWS. Yes, AWS would help too, but in terms of the Alexa list, Amazon would swing the percentage meaningfully. I don’t know to what extent AWS would swing the percentage. Owen From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Jul 30 23:56:40 2014 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:56:40 -0500 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <201407300847.09046.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> <201407300847.09046.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <10C051BE-0617-4382-B1CB-88E031D45128@ufp.org> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote: > Symmetrical would be tough to do unless you're doing Active- > E. I'm an outlier in my thinking, but I believe the best world would be where the muni offered L1 fiber, and leased access to it on a non-discrimatory basis. That would necessitate an Active-E solution since L1 would not have things like GPON splitters in it, but it enables things like buying a dark fiber pair from your home to your business, and lighting it with your own optics. That to me is a huge win. It also means future upgrades are unencumbered. Want to run 10GE? 100GE? 50x100GE WDM? Please do. You leased a dark fiber. If the muni has "gear" (even just splitters) in the path they will gatekeeper upgrades. It may be a smidge more expensive up front, but in the long run I think it will be cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly hugely more flexible. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 793 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/52ee7727/attachment.pgp> From jra at baylink.com Thu Jul 31 00:03:59 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Netflix And AT&T Sign Peering Agreement In-Reply-To: <53D9835C.7060808@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <8745834.7529.1406765039876.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Barton" <dougb at dougbarton.us> > Seems germane to recent conversations ... > > Netflix has signed a peering agreement with AT&T that will see the video > streaming service pay the ISP for direct connection to its network. > > Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and > Verizon. > > http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt "Netflix agrees to buy transit from AT&T"? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jul 31 00:05:28 2014 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:05:28 -0400 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:39:14 -0700." <88902F3E-3782-4470-BC51-42DF32BC323D@delong.com> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> <88902F3E-3782-4470-BC51-42DF32BC323D@delong.com> Message-ID: <33482.1406765128@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:39:14 -0700, Owen DeLong said: > I was talking about Amazon, not AWS. Yes, AWS would help too, but in terms of > the Alexa list, Amazon would swing the percentage meaningfully. I don’t know to > what extent AWS would swing the percentage. There's probably not much stuff that individually is in the Alexa top 100, but collectively AWS probably has a half million or so hosted entities that together would end up at the bottom end of the Top 50 if not better. Of course, then the question becomes what percentage of those half million entities are ready to go once AWS flips the switch.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/d3e9cc94/attachment.pgp> From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 31 00:06:57 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:06:57 -0700 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <20140730225507.6350D1B1EACA@rock.dv.isc.org> References: <CAMDdSzNABh=OtkQn52xJLaY=h26Ho3Bkk54aVSJTXeDXsO30MQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407291722260.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com> <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> <53D96DBD.3070601@dougbarton.us> <20140730225507.6350D1B1EACA@rock.dv.isc.org> Message-ID: <68F95273-F1BD-4C3A-901C-20AF40220A29@delong.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote: > > In message <53D96DBD.3070601 at dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes: >> On 07/30/2014 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now >> >> Pun intended? :) > > The best thing Amazon could do would be to stop stocking IPv4 only > CPE devices. I know this is a hard ask. > > The second best thing would be to warn that a CPE device was IPv4 > only and won't work with the new IPv6 Internet. > > They could also ship dual stack images for all the Kindle models > they have released. In terms of biggest impact, sure. In terms of the biggest impact to effort ratio, I would argue that AAAA for amazon.com would be huge. Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 31 00:10:26 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:10:26 -0700 Subject: Owning a name In-Reply-To: <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> <20140627050029.47186.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com> <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <983415DE-582C-469C-854F-385329C11ACA@delong.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Collin Anderson <collin at averysmallbird.com> wrote: > An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but > also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support > for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the > position that the domains are not assets. > > Press: > http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-icann > Court Documents: > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark at rudholm.com> wrote: > >> On 06/26/2014 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote: >>> >>> I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see >>>> anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist. >>>> >>>> Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF >>> IRAN, >>> et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL) >>> >> >> It seems to me that even if the ccTLD delegations were removed from the >> root DNS zone, all sysadmins in Iran would just add the ns.irnic.ir NS >> record to their cache, effectively ignoring ICANN. I bet a lot of >> sysadmins outside Iran would do the same thing, since it makes sense to >> refer to IRNIC for Iranian DNS regardless of any court ruling. >> >> Similarly, they'd just keep using their current network numbers. It's not >> like ARIN would be able to give them to someone else. Nobody would want >> them. And a lot of us would continue to route those numbers to Iran. Pretty sure that would be a RIPE, not ARIN matter since TTBOMK, Iran et. al. are in the RIPE region (possibly some in AfriNIC actually). >> Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is >> a coordinator, not an authority. Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too. Owen From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 00:36:09 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:36:09 +0000 Subject: Owning a name In-Reply-To: <983415DE-582C-469C-854F-385329C11ACA@delong.com> References: <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> <20140627050029.47186.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com> <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> <983415DE-582C-469C-854F-385329C11ACA@delong.com> Message-ID: <CAMfXtQyAYnAZGLBfBW9e3bupbLVEk1dkrcH33Zpuw2if0LJ6Ag@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote: .... > Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too. Can I nominate Judge William Alsup? From LarrySheldon at cox.net Thu Jul 31 00:47:20 2014 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:47:20 -0500 Subject: Owning a name In-Reply-To: <Yoct1o01h1cZc5601ocvWS> References: <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> <20140627050029.47186.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com> <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> <983415DE-582C-469C-854F-385329C11ACA@delong.com> <Yoct1o01h1cZc5601ocvWS> Message-ID: <53D99218.1090707@cox.net> I keep thinking (in this "you can not own a name" thing) about the early occupants of North America who to a man, I believe, argued that fences were just wrong, because you can't own the land. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 01:16:21 2014 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 21:16:21 -0400 Subject: Netflix And AT&T Sign Peering Agreement In-Reply-To: <8745834.7529.1406765039876.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> References: <53D9835C.7060808@dougbarton.us> <8745834.7529.1406765039876.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <CAL9jLaa2veAP++PmJ-=+H40DCSqs2vOt3mzx3Udt5GAr=unqtg@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Doug Barton" <dougb at dougbarton.us> > >> Seems germane to recent conversations ... >> >> Netflix has signed a peering agreement with AT&T that will see the video >> streaming service pay the ISP for direct connection to its network. >> >> Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and >> Verizon. >> >> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ > > Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt "Netflix agrees to buy > transit from AT&T"? I think you mean 'on-net transit'. From mark at rudholm.com Thu Jul 31 02:17:18 2014 From: mark at rudholm.com (Mark Rudholm) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:17:18 -0700 Subject: Owning a name In-Reply-To: <983415DE-582C-469C-854F-385329C11ACA@delong.com> References: <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> <20140627050029.47186.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com> <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> <983415DE-582C-469C-854F-385329C11ACA@delong.com> Message-ID: <53D9A72E.4030202@rudholm.com> On 07/30/2014 05:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Collin Anderson <collin at averysmallbird.com> wrote: > >> An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but >> also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support >> for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the >> position that the domains are not assets. ICANN would lose a lot of credibility if the ccTLDs were pulled, because people would simply ignore it. >> >> Press: >> http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-icann >> Court Documents: >> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark at rudholm.com> wrote: >> >>> On 06/26/2014 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see >>>>> anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist. >>>>> >>>>> Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF >>>> IRAN, >>>> et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL) >>>> >>> It seems to me that even if the ccTLD delegations were removed from the >>> root DNS zone, all sysadmins in Iran would just add the ns.irnic.ir NS >>> record to their cache, effectively ignoring ICANN. I bet a lot of >>> sysadmins outside Iran would do the same thing, since it makes sense to >>> refer to IRNIC for Iranian DNS regardless of any court ruling. >>> >>> Similarly, they'd just keep using their current network numbers. It's not >>> like ARIN would be able to give them to someone else. Nobody would want >>> them. And a lot of us would continue to route those numbers to Iran. > Pretty sure that would be a RIPE, not ARIN matter since TTBOMK, Iran et. al. are > in the RIPE region (possibly some in AfriNIC actually). Yes, Iran gets numbers mainly from RIPE NCC. I'm used to dealing with ARIN so that's what comes out of my fingers. But, I'm sure you get my point anyway. >>> Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is >>> a coordinator, not an authority. > Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too. > > Owen > From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Thu Jul 31 02:23:17 2014 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:23:17 +1000 Subject: Carrier Grade NAT In-Reply-To: <33482.1406765128@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <20140729200535.GI7836@hezmatt.org> <004101cfab74$189ea580$49dbf080$@wicks.co.nz> <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org> <20140729231327.A63D91B017C9@rock.dv.isc.org> <4478A7C1-7494-41F2-B1D3-70654D37DB10@delong.com> <53D885B5.6040606@studio442.com.au> <9945656C-6386-4DEA-B9AD-D6E53DDDFA40@delong.com> <36D0D1C9-84C4-4ED5-86DF-6D83E8687054@cisco.com> <88902F3E-3782-4470-BC51-42DF32BC323D@delong.com> <33482.1406765128@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <20140731022317.GA4304@hezmatt.org> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:05:28PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:39:14 -0700, Owen DeLong said: > > > I was talking about Amazon, not AWS. Yes, AWS would help too, but in terms of > > the Alexa list, Amazon would swing the percentage meaningfully. I don’t know to > > what extent AWS would swing the percentage. > > There's probably not much stuff that individually is in the Alexa top 100, but > collectively AWS probably has a half million or so hosted entities that > together would end up at the bottom end of the Top 50 if not better. > > Of course, then the question becomes what percentage of those half million > entities are ready to go once AWS flips the switch.... Given that almost all of them will be using ELB, which is just a reverse proxy, where AWS controls the A records that get returned, I'd say that most of them would Just Work. The ones that don't will fail only because they're assuming that the IP address they get sent via HTTP header is IPv4, but plenty of sites don't even look, and most of the rest wouldn't need much more than a regex update and/or DB column size change. - Matt -- The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right place but to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. -- Dorothy Nevill From jra at baylink.com Thu Jul 31 03:21:05 2014 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Netflix And AT&T Sign Peering Agreement In-Reply-To: <8745834.7529.1406765039876.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Message-ID: <2760669.7541.1406776865009.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jay Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com> > > Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and > > Verizon. > > > > http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ > > Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt "Netflix agrees to > buy transit from AT&T"? As several people were kind enough to point out to me off-list, "yes" is the answer to that question. Cheers, -- jr 'on-net transit' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Jul 31 06:15:57 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:15:57 +0200 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <10C051BE-0617-4382-B1CB-88E031D45128@ufp.org> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <201407300847.09046.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <10C051BE-0617-4382-B1CB-88E031D45128@ufp.org> Message-ID: <201407310815.57793.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:56:40 AM Leo Bicknell wrote: > I'm an outlier in my thinking, but I believe the best > world would be where the muni offered L1 fiber, and > leased access to it on a non-discrimatory basis. That > would necessitate an Active-E solution since L1 would > not have things like GPON splitters in it, but it > enables things like buying a dark fiber pair from your > home to your business, and lighting it with your own > optics. That to me is a huge win. > > It also means future upgrades are unencumbered. Want to > run 10GE? 100GE? 50x100GE WDM? Please do. You leased > a dark fiber. If the muni has "gear" (even just > splitters) in the path they will gatekeeper upgrades. > > It may be a smidge more expensive up front, but in the > long run I think it will be cheaper, more reliable, and > most importantly hugely more flexible. Agree. The success of this would be determined by how many purchases were made against the available fibre pairs in Muni's network. If the number of fibre pairs is less than the demand, then the Muni might end either becoming an operator to meet said demand or contract experts to operate the network on its behalf. I, too, generally prefer dark fibre options, but I also don't mind buying lit capacity if the price is reasonable. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140731/b274e97f/attachment.pgp> From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Jul 31 06:21:39 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:21:39 +0200 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <0D5804EF-4A8A-4D6F-9786-BE33CEE0B265@delong.com> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <201407301851.26880.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <0D5804EF-4A8A-4D6F-9786-BE33CEE0B265@delong.com> Message-ID: <201407310821.39593.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:35:32 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze > Netflix out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by > the existing content/ISP conglomerates to do just > exactly that, no? For Netflix, I can't say for sure whether it is a deliberate attempt to "grab" them or not, but yes, the current environment certainly has the makings of what it would take to achieve such an outcome, on purpose or by accident. That said, as successful as Netflix are, I believe there are other content owners out there that are more likely to challenge the traditional ISP model that Netflix ever could. Those are the ones I'm more concerned about. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140731/ddbb7b51/attachment.pgp> From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 31 08:58:34 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:58:34 +0200 Subject: Call for Nominations to ARIN AC and ARIN Board =?UTF-8?B?4oCT?= Reminder In-Reply-To: <D52EF367-09A8-4503-BBBC-DAF808282A86@corp.arin.net> References: <53D90880.8020502@arin.net> <D52EF367-09A8-4503-BBBC-DAF808282A86@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <m2k36tx5tx.wl%randy@psg.com> i nominate pigasus, she'll fit right in From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 31 08:59:48 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:59:48 +0200 Subject: Owning a name In-Reply-To: <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> <20140627050029.47186.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com> <53AD0714.90408@rudholm.com> <CAC+VsLs7GDubTs2_JdKy4sUiJcnBD2z2f4N=Pm7n0jhrRwWz1Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <m2iomdx5rv.wl%randy@psg.com> > An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but > also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support > for terrorism. and they left out IL? From mansaxel at besserwisser.org Thu Jul 31 12:01:28 2014 From: mansaxel at besserwisser.org (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:01:28 +0200 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics In-Reply-To: <10C051BE-0617-4382-B1CB-88E031D45128@ufp.org> References: <19855201.6612.1405951988177.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <4edb61f3-59f7-4c4e-ac68-ab2cd9625a39@email.android.com> <CAMrdfRwbt==G_vP24PntLbKMc2QNvU32e1m+w=-CKbnTGD8fmg@mail.gmail.com> <201407300847.09046.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <10C051BE-0617-4382-B1CB-88E031D45128@ufp.org> Message-ID: <20140731120128.GA24465@besserwisser.org> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Date: Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 06:56:40PM -0500 Quoting Leo Bicknell (bicknell at ufp.org): > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote: > > > Symmetrical would be tough to do unless you're doing Active- > > E. > > I'm an outlier in my thinking, but I believe the best world would be > where the muni offered L1 fiber, and leased access to it on a > non-discrimatory basis. That would necessitate an Active-E solution > since L1 would not have things like GPON splitters in it, but it > enables things like buying a dark fiber pair from your home to > your business, and lighting it with your own optics. That to me is > a huge win. > > It also means future upgrades are unencumbered. Want to run 10GE? > 100GE? 50x100GE WDM? Please do. You leased a dark fiber. If the > muni has "gear" (even just splitters) in the path they will gatekeeper > upgrades. > > It may be a smidge more expensive up front, but in the long run I > think it will be cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly hugely > more flexible. GPON is basically unheard of in Sweden. All "fiber" access is either copper to a switch in the basement/similar in multi-tenant houses or direct pairs to CO. Some middle solutions exist where there's a rugged switch in a pole or roadside cabinet, but they are exceptions. I think the Amsterdam buildout is similar. It is better, both for the customer and the provider. The only "loser" is a potential third party acting as comms provider on L1, possibly L2. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 DON'T go!! I'm not HOWARD COSELL!! I know POLISH JOKES ... WAIT!! Don't go!! I AM Howard Cosell! ... And I DON'T know Polish jokes!! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140731/540bbc02/attachment.pgp> From colton.conor at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 13:23:20 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:23:20 -0500 Subject: Greenfield Access Network Message-ID: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from the ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to provide and manage residential and business internet services similar to the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone services are not to be considered only internet. Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town (each POP has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports populated to serve the area. 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged mode. Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the ONTs is already in place ASN from ARIN /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers Questions are: What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the uplinks of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router would be much more expensive? Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with full tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation switch? How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? Dynamic IP addresses? DHCP? How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts? If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The core router, a linux box, or something else? What about DNS? Is a firewall needed in the core? What else is needed? Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors are willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the operator/city to answer these harder questions. How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was not used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was used I think many of these questions would be the same. From khelms at zcorum.com Thu Jul 31 13:54:16 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:54:16 -0400 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> "What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the uplinks of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router would be much more expensive?" Definitely aggregate into a switch first unless you want to run a Layer 3 switch as your router, which I don't recommend. "Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with full tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation switch?" Your math is a little backwards, its very unlikely that you're going to have 40 Gbps of Internet (or other interconnection) for the router to actually have to process. What is the average provisioned speed for each of the 10k PON ports? What over subscription rate are you planning for? What, if anything, will you be carrying on net, ie bandwidth consumption that won't come from or go to the public Internet? Your own video, voice, or other service are examples of things that are often on net. In any case you're probably in the ASR family with Cisco and I can't remember the equivalent from Juniper. How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? CGN is the option of last resort IMO, but you may have to consider it. A better approach is to see if your backbone providers will agree to give some blocks that you can announce and use those blocks for dynamic customers only. Your static IP customers should come from your direct ARIN allotment in case you need to choose a new backbone provider, which is extremely common over time. "Dynamic IP addresses? DHCP?" DHCP with enforcement from the shelves. All the major OLT vendors support doing this so that a customer can only use the address assigned to him by DHCP and nothing else, except for those customers that you choose to hard code. Make most of your "static" customers actually DHCP reservations and only hard code those that you must. "How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts?" DHCP, with Option 82 logging for the circuit ID is the better path than a BRAS (PPPoE) these days. Here's a paper we put together on that topic a while back: http://www.zcorum.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Should-I-Move-from-PPPoA-or-PPPoE-to-DHCP.pdf Depending on your OLT vendor you can either use their built in port isolation or QinQ tagging, both are reliable and scalable, just ask your vendor which is the best option for your specific gear. "If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The core router, a linux box, or something else?" I wouldn't have those two services connected personally, though there are hooks for some of the CGN boxes to talk to DHCP servers. I would hope you can get another 6k addresses and avoid the need for CGN altogether. Having said that, have you tested your OLTs and ONTs for IPv6 interoperability? If they don't handle it well then you're going to have to think about alternatives like 6RD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment) For DHCP at your scale you can run ISC DHCP ( http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/) which is the most common open source DHCP daemon if you someone who can take care of a Linux server, parse the Option 82 information for logging, and handle the configuration of the DHCP daemon itself. Otherwise you might want to look at commercial products designed for the service provider market like Incongito's BCC and Cisco's BAC (CNR replacement) http://www.incognito.com/products/broadband-command-center/ http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-management/broadband-access-center/index.html "What about DNS? Is a firewall needed in the core? What else is needed?" There are two kinds of DNS, caching (recursive) and authoritative. The first is what your customers will use to resolve things on the Internet and the second is used to provide caching name servers on the Internet with information about domains you control (are authoritative for). The first needs good performance, availability, and scalability since your customers will use your caching name servers constantly. Most people can run BIND at your scale, again if you have someone with Linux experience, but there are other alternatives. PowerDNS has both caching and authoritative modules and there are some commercial offerings out there both as cloud hosting and local deployments. Your backbone provider will also often have caching name servers your customers can use, but the quality varies quite a bit. You can also, especially at first, leverage some of the free offerings like Google's DNS. I don't recommend firewalls for service provider networks, but you should make sure your gear can run (and is configured to do so) BCP 38. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from the > ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to > provide and manage residential and business internet services similar to > the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone > services are not to be considered only internet. > > Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: > 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town (each POP > has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. > Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location > Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports populated to > serve the area. > 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged mode. > Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs > All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the ONTs > is already in place > ASN from ARIN > /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN > 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers > > Questions are: > > What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the uplinks > of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router > would be much more expensive? > Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with full > tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation > switch? > How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, > but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that > getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? Dynamic IP > addresses? DHCP? > How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer > VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? > Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts? > If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The > core router, a linux box, or something else? > What about DNS? > Is a firewall needed in the core? > What else is needed? > > Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at > building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors are > willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the > operator/city to answer these harder questions. > > How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the > resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was not > used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was used I > think many of these questions would be the same. > From drew.weaver at thenap.com Thu Jul 31 14:38:13 2014 From: drew.weaver at thenap.com (Drew Weaver) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:38:13 +0000 Subject: EBAY reachability issues Message-ID: <4eddd0a889e649e1b814b35e20f60488@EXCHANGE2K13.thenap.com> We've been seeing some issues with getting to Ebay this morning, only a very select few of their GSLB sites in DNS seem to be responding (to us at least)... Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.135.210.181|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.161|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.181|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out Tried reaching out to them but can't contact anyone if anyone has a contact there please forward. Thanks, -Drew From colton.conor at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 16:07:49 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:07:49 -0500 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMDdSzM-A14jXu_8F3UwYcuctLPFK4FUCdXJsnDMDsLuTNPPEw@mail.gmail.com> Scott, Thanks for the long post. We will use a layer 2 10G aggregation switch then to aggregate the chassis at the core location. Do you have any recommendations on 10G switches? Yes I realize the math is a little backwards as this is all hypothetical at this point. We would provision each ONT as a shared 1Gbps offering similar to Google Fiber. We know there will be a large amount of oversubscription as no one really uses a full Gbps or anywhere close to it. I just wanted to stress the point that carrier redundancy at the 10G level would be a requirement for the core router, and it should of course have 10G links going to the uplinks on the aggregation switch. I think the Cisco ASR9k and the Juniper MX line will do well. Not sure if there are any others that can handle this level of traffic on the BGP side? So we have a 10G aggregation switch to aggregate the chassis uplink connections, and a 10G router BGP capable router. I really liked your article on DHCP vs PPP for DSL networks. We definitely agree the way to go is with a DHCP server. A couple of items your article left as big questions: 1. The article mentioned DHCP doesn't do the other part of what PPPoE or PPPoA does, which is generate RADIUS accounting records that give us the bandwidth information. So that’s one of the main challenges in switching to a DHCP based system. So, how do you handle bandwidth tracking in an all DHCP environment then? If I want to track how many GB a customer used last month, or the average Mbps used how do you do so? 2. I liked your option 82 example, and that works well for DSL networks where one port is tied to one customer. But how does option 82 work when you have multiple customers hanging off a GPON port? What does GPON use a subport identifier? 3. You mentioned, DHCP is again, not a authentication protocol. So what handles authentication then if only DHCP is used, and there are no usernames and passwords? I guess for DSL networks you can enable or disable the port to allow or disallow access, and Option 82 for identification? I assume you wouldn't want to shut off the GPON OLT port if one customer wasn't paying their bill as it would affect the other customers on that port. I assume access vendors allow you to shut down the sub port or ONT in this situation for GPON? Still that seems messy having to login to a shelf or EMS system or API to an EMS system especially if you have multiple access vendors in a network. Is there a way to do authentication with DHCP? What about open networks like wifi where anyone can connect, so you don't have the ability to turn of the port or disable the end device? 4. I don't think anyone is buying a BRAS anymore, but looks like Cisco, Juniper, and ALU have what they call BGN, Broadband Subscriber Management, and other similar software. How are these different from BRAS functionality? So it looks like there are open source and commercial solutions for DHCP and DNS. Some providers like Infloblox seems to integrate all these into one. So if we have a core router that speaks BGP, a 10G aggregation switch to aggregate the the chassis, and a device like Infloblox or the other commercial solutions you mentioned that do DHCP/DNS, is there anything else that is needed besides the access gear already mentioned in the assumptions? Are these large and expensive commercial BGN/Broadband Subscriber management products a thing of the past or still very relevant in todays environment? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > "What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the uplinks > of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router > would be much more expensive?" > > Definitely aggregate into a switch first unless you want to run a Layer 3 > switch as your router, which I don't recommend. > > > "Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with full > tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation > switch?" > > Your math is a little backwards, its very unlikely that you're going to > have 40 Gbps of Internet (or other interconnection) for the router to > actually have to process. What is the average provisioned speed for each > of the 10k PON ports? What over subscription rate are you planning for? > What, if anything, will you be carrying on net, ie bandwidth consumption > that won't come from or go to the public Internet? Your own video, voice, > or other service are examples of things that are often on net. In any case > you're probably in the ASR family with Cisco and I can't remember > the equivalent from Juniper. > > > How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, > but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that > getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? > > CGN is the option of last resort IMO, but you may have to consider it. A > better approach is to see if your backbone providers will agree to give > some blocks that you can announce and use those blocks for dynamic > customers only. Your static IP customers should come from your direct ARIN > allotment in case you need to choose a new backbone provider, which is > extremely common over time. > > > "Dynamic IP > addresses? DHCP?" > > DHCP with enforcement from the shelves. All the major OLT vendors support > doing this so that a customer can only use the address assigned to him by > DHCP and nothing else, except for those customers that you choose to hard > code. Make most of your "static" customers actually DHCP reservations and > only hard code those that you must. > > "How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer > VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? > Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts?" > > DHCP, with Option 82 logging for the circuit ID is the better path than a > BRAS (PPPoE) these days. Here's a paper we put together on that topic a > while back: > > > http://www.zcorum.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Should-I-Move-from-PPPoA-or-PPPoE-to-DHCP.pdf > > Depending on your OLT vendor you can either use their built in port > isolation or QinQ tagging, both are reliable and scalable, just ask your > vendor which is the best option for your specific gear. > > > > "If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The > core router, a linux box, or something else?" > > I wouldn't have those two services connected personally, though there are > hooks for some of the CGN boxes to talk to DHCP servers. I would hope you > can get another 6k addresses and avoid the need for CGN altogether. Having > said that, have you tested your OLTs and ONTs for IPv6 interoperability? > If they don't handle it well then you're going to have to think about > alternatives like 6RD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment) > > For DHCP at your scale you can run ISC DHCP ( > http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/) which is the most common open source > DHCP daemon if you someone who can take care of a Linux server, parse the > Option 82 information for logging, and handle the configuration of the DHCP > daemon itself. Otherwise you might want to look at commercial products > designed for the service provider market like Incongito's BCC and Cisco's > BAC (CNR replacement) > > http://www.incognito.com/products/broadband-command-center/ > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-management/broadband-access-center/index.html > > > "What about DNS? > Is a firewall needed in the core? > What else is needed?" > > There are two kinds of DNS, caching (recursive) and authoritative. The > first is what your customers will use to resolve things on the Internet and > the second is used to provide caching name servers on the Internet with > information about domains you control (are authoritative for). The first > needs good performance, availability, and scalability since your customers > will use your caching name servers constantly. Most people can run BIND at > your scale, again if you have someone with Linux experience, but there are > other alternatives. PowerDNS has both caching and authoritative modules > and there are some commercial offerings out there both as cloud hosting and > local deployments. Your backbone provider will also often have caching > name servers your customers can use, but the quality varies quite a bit. > You can also, especially at first, leverage some of the free offerings > like Google's DNS. I don't recommend firewalls for service provider > networks, but you should make sure your gear can run (and is configured to > do so) BCP 38. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from the >> ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to >> provide and manage residential and business internet services similar to >> the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone >> services are not to be considered only internet. >> >> Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: >> 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town (each >> POP >> has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. >> Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location >> Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports populated >> to >> serve the area. >> 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged mode. >> Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs >> All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the ONTs >> is already in place >> ASN from ARIN >> /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN >> 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers >> >> Questions are: >> >> What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the uplinks >> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >> would be much more expensive? >> Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with full >> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >> switch? >> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, >> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? Dynamic >> IP >> addresses? DHCP? >> How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer >> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts? >> If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The >> core router, a linux box, or something else? >> What about DNS? >> Is a firewall needed in the core? >> What else is needed? >> >> Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at >> building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors are >> willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the >> operator/city to answer these harder questions. >> >> How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the >> resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was not >> used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was used I >> think many of these questions would be the same. >> > > From rdobbins at arbor.net Thu Jul 31 16:24:22 2014 From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:24:22 +0700 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2F548103-3496-4A0F-85D5-43A126853A2F@arbor.net> On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > Is a firewall needed in the core? No, quite the opposite: <https://app.box.com/s/a3oqqlgwe15j8svojvzl> > How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the resources and time to do so? I'd hire folks who have experience from both and architectural and operational perspectives, and who have the necessary local knowledge. Most of the question you're asking (except the one about iatrogenic stateful firewalls) are situationally-specific, and aren't really going to be answerable in detail via a mailing-list, no matter the depth and breadth of expertise of many of those participating in said email list. For example, you've asked nothing specifically about recursive or authoritative DNS infrastructure, although they're both key (you did mention DNS generically, which is good, but that's overly broad). Nothing about availability and resiliency and telemetry visibility and network hardening. Nothing about access policies, mitigation systems, quarantine systems, etc. Nothing about upstream transit requirements, nothing about peering goals and imperatives. Nothing about redundancy at any level/in any area/for any function. And so forth. I'm not criticizing you; I'm just trying to make the point that instead of concentrating on vendors and technologies and hardware and software, it's better to concentrate on *people* who have the requisite experience and expertise, and go from there. There are lots of specializations and subspecializations, and it's important to have folks who have broad experience spanning multiple areas, as well as others who know *everything* in a given area. While you can get some categorical advice, you can't really crowdsource the architecture, design, deployment, and operations of your network. ;> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön From colton.conor at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 17:01:26 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:01:26 -0500 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <2F548103-3496-4A0F-85D5-43A126853A2F@arbor.net> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> <2F548103-3496-4A0F-85D5-43A126853A2F@arbor.net> Message-ID: <CAMDdSzO5QQQT6-fK=K1o1Nvvto2XekCphg5s4u5vaBxZQonnGA@mail.gmail.com> Roland, I agree with everything you mentioned in your email. No matter how much money and resources you have, if you don't have the talent and people required to get the job done the project will fail. There a many outfits, like Scotts for example, that will handle most all of these issues for an operator that doesn't have the skills, talent, or personnel to deploy such a network on their own. I tried to keep the topics as broad as possible. No, I didn't go into detail about recursive or authoritative as I figured the general term DNS would cover both for the readers of this forum. The same with availability and resiliency and telemetry visibility and network hardening and the other detailed terms you have mentioned as I am making the assumption that this networking gear being talk about (carrier grade routers) would have most of these capabilities and people that would implement them (certified network engineers) would handle these issues. With that being said, we are not trying to crowdsource the architecture, design, deployment, and operations of our network. We are just seeking categorical advice as mentioned. If you ask this question to many of the network vendors that make these products they will try to oversell you on items you don't need. Just trying to cut through some of the marketing BS that the vendors produce, and see what people in the real world are actually deploying. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is a firewall needed in the core? > > No, quite the opposite: > > <https://app.box.com/s/a3oqqlgwe15j8svojvzl> > > > How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the > resources and time to do so? > > I'd hire folks who have experience from both and architectural and > operational perspectives, and who have the necessary local knowledge. Most > of the question you're asking (except the one about iatrogenic stateful > firewalls) are situationally-specific, and aren't really going to be > answerable in detail via a mailing-list, no matter the depth and breadth of > expertise of many of those participating in said email list. > > For example, you've asked nothing specifically about recursive or > authoritative DNS infrastructure, although they're both key (you did > mention DNS generically, which is good, but that's overly broad). Nothing > about availability and resiliency and telemetry visibility and network > hardening. Nothing about access policies, mitigation systems, quarantine > systems, etc. Nothing about upstream transit requirements, nothing about > peering goals and imperatives. Nothing about redundancy at any level/in > any area/for any function. And so forth. > > I'm not criticizing you; I'm just trying to make the point that instead of > concentrating on vendors and technologies and hardware and software, it's > better to concentrate on *people* who have the requisite experience and > expertise, and go from there. There are lots of specializations and > subspecializations, and it's important to have folks who have broad > experience spanning multiple areas, as well as others who know *everything* > in a given area. > > While you can get some categorical advice, you can't really crowdsource > the architecture, design, deployment, and operations of your network. > > ;> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Equo ne credite, Teucri. > > -- Laocoön > > From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 31 17:10:49 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:10:49 -0700 Subject: Netflix To Cogent To World In-Reply-To: <201407310821.39593.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <7243979.6896.1406126897011.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> <201407301851.26880.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <0D5804EF-4A8A-4D6F-9786-BE33CEE0B265@delong.com> <201407310821.39593.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <B4408CAE-5B1A-410E-9734-8787B7BF359F@delong.com> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote: > On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:35:32 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze >> Netflix out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by >> the existing content/ISP conglomerates to do just >> exactly that, no? > > For Netflix, I can't say for sure whether it is a deliberate > attempt to "grab" them or not, but yes, the current > environment certainly has the makings of what it would take > to achieve such an outcome, on purpose or by accident. > > That said, as successful as Netflix are, I believe there are > other content owners out there that are more likely to > challenge the traditional ISP model that Netflix ever could. > Those are the ones I'm more concerned about. > > Mark. You are still misinterpreting my statement, or at least it appears that you are. I am not saying that Netflix is attempting to “grab”. I’m saying that Netflix is the target as the content distributors that are already ISPs attempt to prevent Netflix from capturing more of their content customers. (Netflix is also a distributor, not owner). AT&T, Verizon, et. al. also have content businesses and it appears to me that this battle is an attempt by them to reduce Netflix’ inroads into that business. IOW, the incumbent ISPs seem to be doing exactly what you described as an effort to protect their traditional content businesses. Owen From mikea at mikea.ath.cx Thu Jul 31 17:18:00 2014 From: mikea at mikea.ath.cx (Mike A) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:18:00 -0500 Subject: EBAY reachability issues In-Reply-To: <4eddd0a889e649e1b814b35e20f60488@EXCHANGE2K13.thenap.com> References: <4eddd0a889e649e1b814b35e20f60488@EXCHANGE2K13.thenap.com> Message-ID: <20140731171800.GA55752@mikea.ath.cx> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:38:13PM +0000, Drew Weaver wrote: > We've been seeing some issues with getting to Ebay this morning, only a very select few of their GSLB sites in DNS seem to be responding (to us at least)... > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.135.210.181|:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.161|:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.181|:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out > > Tried reaching out to them but can't contact anyone if anyone has a contact there please forward. isitdownrightnow.com says that ebay isn't answering and hasn't been for close to 14 hours. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea at mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin From bill at herrin.us Thu Jul 31 17:18:30 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:18:30 -0400 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP-guGXhbM0CK3+UDEkw5+9dwAiHAW816SxRw=X0U2GcKWqV2g@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from the > ground up, Hi Colton, We just had a long discussion in this forum to the effect that if a city builds a greenfield access network, it would be best limited to "layer 1" services. That is, deliver dark fiber and invite as many service providers as possible to light it with whatever services they're inclined to sell. Commercially, the L1 infrastructure presents the barrier to entry. That's why you don't have enough competitive commercial entities mooting the need to even discuss providing Internet as a municipal service. Even the smallest city is attractive to competitive commercial service providers when they can lease in-place L1 infrastructure ad hoc. This isn't as sexy as delivering gigabit Internet in the way roads aren't as sexy as the cars which drive on them but it relieves the city of having to make most of the hard-to-get-right decisions that could tank your effort and turn it into a boondoggle. Let commercial entities worry about what car will be popular next year and let commercial entities figure out which stores folks will drive those cars to. Just worry about where to build roads. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> wrote: > I'm not criticizing you; I'm just trying to make the point that instead > of concentrating on vendors and technologies and hardware and > software, it's better to concentrate on *people* who have the > requisite experience and expertise, and go from there. This. So much this. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? From contact at winterei.se Thu Jul 31 17:23:54 2014 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 02:23:54 +0900 Subject: EBAY reachability issues In-Reply-To: <20140731171800.GA55752@mikea.ath.cx> References: <4eddd0a889e649e1b814b35e20f60488@EXCHANGE2K13.thenap.com> <20140731171800.GA55752@mikea.ath.cx> Message-ID: <CAFZNddh6tdXNr+BPcRNaPpCLZpjoYcLRjk+1uiYFAZO0Q77p+Q@mail.gmail.com> Appears to be loading just fine from here in Sg. On Jul 31, 2014 11:21 PM, "Mike A" <mikea at mikea.ath.cx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:38:13PM +0000, Drew Weaver wrote: > > We've been seeing some issues with getting to Ebay this morning, only a > very select few of their GSLB sites in DNS seem to be responding (to us at > least)... > > > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.135.210.181|:80... connected. > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > > > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.161|:80... connected. > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out > > > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.181|:80... connected. > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out > > > > Tried reaching out to them but can't contact anyone if anyone has a > contact there please forward. > > isitdownrightnow.com says that ebay isn't answering and hasn't been for > close to 14 hours. > > -- > Mike Andrews, W5EGO > mikea at mikea.ath.cx > Tired old sysadmin > From mikea at mikea.ath.cx Thu Jul 31 17:30:05 2014 From: mikea at mikea.ath.cx (Mike A) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:30:05 -0500 Subject: EBAY reachability issues In-Reply-To: <CAFZNddh6tdXNr+BPcRNaPpCLZpjoYcLRjk+1uiYFAZO0Q77p+Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eddd0a889e649e1b814b35e20f60488@EXCHANGE2K13.thenap.com> <20140731171800.GA55752@mikea.ath.cx> <CAFZNddh6tdXNr+BPcRNaPpCLZpjoYcLRjk+1uiYFAZO0Q77p+Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140731173005.GB55752@mikea.ath.cx> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 02:23:54AM +0900, Paul S. wrote: > Appears to be loading just fine from here in Sg. > On Jul 31, 2014 11:21 PM, "Mike A" <mikea at mikea.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:38:13PM +0000, Drew Weaver wrote: > > > We've been seeing some issues with getting to Ebay this morning, only a > > very select few of their GSLB sites in DNS seem to be responding (to us at > > least)... > > > > > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.135.210.181|:80... connected. > > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > > > > > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.161|:80... connected. > > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out > > > > > > Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.181|:80... connected. > > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out > > > > > > Tried reaching out to them but can't contact anyone if anyone has a > > contact there please forward. > > > > isitdownrightnow.com says that ebay isn't answering and hasn't been for > > close to 14 hours. The outage appears to be provider-specific, according to comments in that particular thread at isitdownrightnow. And eBay appears to be flapping; it was up for a short time, and now has been down for 21+ minutes. Glad it's not my site. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea at mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin From khelms at zcorum.com Thu Jul 31 17:59:52 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:59:52 -0400 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzM-A14jXu_8F3UwYcuctLPFK4FUCdXJsnDMDsLuTNPPEw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDdSzM-A14jXu_8F3UwYcuctLPFK4FUCdXJsnDMDsLuTNPPEw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRxibV_qL1r=jMDhgAtfqZGxBHeB73aGtt27P9F1BcoSqg@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > Scott, > > Thanks for the long post. > > We will use a layer 2 10G aggregation switch then to aggregate the chassis > at the core location. Do you have any recommendations on 10G switches? > Not really, just stick with one of the major brands and you _should_ be fine. > > Yes I realize the math is a little backwards as this is all hypothetical > at this point. We would provision each ONT as a shared 1Gbps offering > similar to Google Fiber. We know there will be a large amount of > oversubscription as no one really uses a full Gbps or anywhere close to it. > I just wanted to stress the point that carrier redundancy at the 10G level > would be a requirement for the core router, and it should of course have > 10G links going to the uplinks on the aggregation switch. I think the Cisco > ASR9k and the Juniper MX line will do well. Not sure if there are any > others that can handle this level of traffic on the BGP side? > That's reasonable IMO and yes, I think the Juniper MX can handle that as well as some other functions for you related to subscriber management if you want. The MX line has a full BRAS set of capabilities built into it that it inherited from the older ERX line, but they're commonly deployed without using any of them of as well. > > So we have a 10G aggregation switch to aggregate the chassis uplink > connections, and a 10G router BGP capable router. > > I really liked your article on DHCP vs PPP for DSL networks. We definitely > agree the way to go is with a DHCP server. A couple of items your article > left as big questions: > > 1. The article mentioned DHCP doesn't do the other part of what PPPoE or > PPPoA does, which is generate RADIUS accounting records that give us the > bandwidth information. So that’s one of the main challenges in switching to > a DHCP based system. So, how do you handle bandwidth tracking in an all > DHCP environment then? If I want to track how many GB a customer used last > month, or the average Mbps used how do you do so? > There are a few ways to get at that problem. You can use Netflow/IPFIX collection to gather the usage from your router, accepting that you're only going to get information on layer 3 traffic, which generally isn't a problem. You will need to match the IPs up against your Option 82 parsing which will give you the circuit ID, IP address, and WAN MAC of the ONT. You can also poll your shelves via SNMP, CLI, TL-1, and/or Netconf to collect the data and put it into a database in much the same way you can use RADIUS accounting data. > > 2. I liked your option 82 example, and that works well for DSL networks > where one port is tied to one customer. But how does option 82 work when > you have multiple customers hanging off a GPON port? What does GPON use a > subport identifier? > Yep, the different vendors implement it slightly differently, usually the ONT MAC/serial will be included or the ONT ID will be included. Talk with your vendor, all the major OLT vendors are very familiar with Option 82 and in many cases they can tailor what their boxes send to make it easier for you. > 3. You mentioned, DHCP is again, not a authentication protocol. So what > handles authentication then if only DHCP is used, and there are no > usernames and passwords? I guess for DSL networks you can enable or disable > the port to allow or disallow access, and Option 82 for identification? I > assume you wouldn't want to shut off the GPON OLT port if one customer > wasn't paying their bill as it would affect the other customers on that > port. I assume access vendors allow you to shut down the sub port or ONT in > this situation for GPON? Still that seems messy having to login to a shelf > or EMS system or API to an EMS system especially if you have multiple > access vendors in a network. Is there a way to do authentication with DHCP? > What about open networks like wifi where anyone can connect, so you don't > have the ability to turn of the port or disable the end device? > 4. I don't think anyone is buying a BRAS anymore, but looks like Cisco, > Juniper, and ALU have what they call BGN, Broadband Subscriber Management, > and other similar software. How are these different from BRAS functionality? > First, if you can manage it turn on DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON network. AFAIK only Calix has announced this functionality, but I expect the others to follow suit now that there is an official effort at CableLabs to allow that. http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/docsis/calix-launches-docsis-provisioning-of-gpon/d/d-id/709859 The notion of managing ports and profiles via (an ever changing) shelf API is one of the main reasons that telco billing systems cost so much compared to cable billing systems. If you can't swing DPoG then you're kind of stuck, either you can implement the API your vendor supplies with your billing system, manage the profile assignment manually (yuck), or just provision everyone with the same speed (only works for data only deployments), or go down the older route of putting in a BRAS and making sure the ONTs you're deploying have a PPPoE client embedded in them. Having to deploy an external router for each customer, which I've seen some operators do, makes your install costs higher and makes troubleshooting harder. > So it looks like there are open source and commercial solutions for DHCP > and DNS. Some providers like Infloblox seems to integrate all these into > one. > > So if we have a core router that speaks BGP, a 10G aggregation switch to > aggregate the the chassis, and a device like Infloblox or the other > commercial solutions you mentioned that do DHCP/DNS, is there anything else > that is needed besides the access gear already mentioned in the > assumptions? Are these large and expensive commercial BGN/Broadband > Subscriber management products a thing of the past or still very relevant > in todays environment? > They're not very relevant, once the the OLT vendors realized they could snoop the DHCP session and enforce what the server provided the need for subscriber management pieces really dropped. You've listed the bare essentials for a functional network, there are lots of things that are helpful or useful, but what you have is functional. Having said all of that, there are some relatively unobtrusive ways to have some level of authentication, I just don't think they're very valuable. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > >> "What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >> uplinks >> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >> would be much more expensive?" >> >> Definitely aggregate into a switch first unless you want to run a Layer 3 >> switch as your router, which I don't recommend. >> >> >> "Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >> full >> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >> switch?" >> >> Your math is a little backwards, its very unlikely that you're going to >> have 40 Gbps of Internet (or other interconnection) for the router to >> actually have to process. What is the average provisioned speed for each >> of the 10k PON ports? What over subscription rate are you planning for? >> What, if anything, will you be carrying on net, ie bandwidth consumption >> that won't come from or go to the public Internet? Your own video, voice, >> or other service are examples of things that are often on net. In any case >> you're probably in the ASR family with Cisco and I can't remember >> the equivalent from Juniper. >> >> >> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, >> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >> >> CGN is the option of last resort IMO, but you may have to consider it. A >> better approach is to see if your backbone providers will agree to give >> some blocks that you can announce and use those blocks for dynamic >> customers only. Your static IP customers should come from your direct ARIN >> allotment in case you need to choose a new backbone provider, which is >> extremely common over time. >> >> >> "Dynamic IP >> addresses? DHCP?" >> >> DHCP with enforcement from the shelves. All the major OLT vendors >> support doing this so that a customer can only use the address assigned to >> him by DHCP and nothing else, except for those customers that you choose to >> hard code. Make most of your "static" customers actually DHCP reservations >> and only hard code those that you must. >> >> "How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer >> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts?" >> >> DHCP, with Option 82 logging for the circuit ID is the better path than a >> BRAS (PPPoE) these days. Here's a paper we put together on that topic a >> while back: >> >> >> http://www.zcorum.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Should-I-Move-from-PPPoA-or-PPPoE-to-DHCP.pdf >> >> Depending on your OLT vendor you can either use their built in port >> isolation or QinQ tagging, both are reliable and scalable, just ask your >> vendor which is the best option for your specific gear. >> >> >> >> "If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The >> core router, a linux box, or something else?" >> >> I wouldn't have those two services connected personally, though there are >> hooks for some of the CGN boxes to talk to DHCP servers. I would hope you >> can get another 6k addresses and avoid the need for CGN altogether. Having >> said that, have you tested your OLTs and ONTs for IPv6 interoperability? >> If they don't handle it well then you're going to have to think about >> alternatives like 6RD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment >> ) >> >> For DHCP at your scale you can run ISC DHCP ( >> http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/) which is the most common open source >> DHCP daemon if you someone who can take care of a Linux server, parse the >> Option 82 information for logging, and handle the configuration of the DHCP >> daemon itself. Otherwise you might want to look at commercial products >> designed for the service provider market like Incongito's BCC and Cisco's >> BAC (CNR replacement) >> >> http://www.incognito.com/products/broadband-command-center/ >> >> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-management/broadband-access-center/index.html >> >> >> "What about DNS? >> Is a firewall needed in the core? >> What else is needed?" >> >> There are two kinds of DNS, caching (recursive) and authoritative. The >> first is what your customers will use to resolve things on the Internet and >> the second is used to provide caching name servers on the Internet with >> information about domains you control (are authoritative for). The first >> needs good performance, availability, and scalability since your customers >> will use your caching name servers constantly. Most people can run BIND at >> your scale, again if you have someone with Linux experience, but there are >> other alternatives. PowerDNS has both caching and authoritative modules >> and there are some commercial offerings out there both as cloud hosting and >> local deployments. Your backbone provider will also often have caching >> name servers your customers can use, but the quality varies quite a bit. >> You can also, especially at first, leverage some of the free offerings >> like Google's DNS. I don't recommend firewalls for service provider >> networks, but you should make sure your gear can run (and is configured to >> do so) BCP 38. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> -------------------------------- >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> -------------------------------- >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from >>> the >>> ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to >>> provide and manage residential and business internet services similar to >>> the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone >>> services are not to be considered only internet. >>> >>> Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: >>> 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town (each >>> POP >>> has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. >>> Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location >>> Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports populated >>> to >>> serve the area. >>> 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged mode. >>> Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs >>> All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the >>> ONTs >>> is already in place >>> ASN from ARIN >>> /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN >>> 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers >>> >>> Questions are: >>> >>> What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>> uplinks >>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>> would be much more expensive? >>> Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>> full >>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >>> switch? >>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, >>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? Dynamic >>> IP >>> addresses? DHCP? >>> How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer >>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts? >>> If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The >>> core router, a linux box, or something else? >>> What about DNS? >>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>> What else is needed? >>> >>> Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at >>> building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors >>> are >>> willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the >>> operator/city to answer these harder questions. >>> >>> How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the >>> resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was >>> not >>> used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was used I >>> think many of these questions would be the same. >>> >> >> > From colton.conor at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 18:25:28 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:25:28 -0500 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxibV_qL1r=jMDhgAtfqZGxBHeB73aGtt27P9F1BcoSqg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDdSzM-A14jXu_8F3UwYcuctLPFK4FUCdXJsnDMDsLuTNPPEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxibV_qL1r=jMDhgAtfqZGxBHeB73aGtt27P9F1BcoSqg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMDdSzNTVor4GSZHrR4m-ZfrRQ_Cx3ua5y0PLZO+-ETcUjD2Yg@mail.gmail.com> I have read both the Juniper MX and Cisco ASR9K do support this advanced BRAS functionality, what Juniper calls Subscriber Feature Management and what Cisco calls BGN. These software functions run on the router itself, however the are not free or included with the base chassis. To enable these you must pay a hefty fee. So you are saying that these advanced feature packs that the largest networking markers in the world sell are really not needed anymore due to advancements on the access vendor side of the house? >From the reading I have done about these solutions, it is kind of like PPPoE with a radius setup, but instead DHCP option 82 with a radius setup. These routers are also capable of running a local DHCP server, but I am not sure if that is recommended. The DPoE DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON network is interesting, but is that really relevant for a new provider if they don't have cable CMTS systems already deployed. Sure, it makes sense for the cable compaines who have already bought billing systems and are used to living in a DOCSIS world. But if you were starting fresh from the group up are you recommending we look at GPON providers like Calix because they support DPoE so we can buy DOCIS billing systems? That is an interesting concept. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Scott, >> >> Thanks for the long post. >> >> We will use a layer 2 10G aggregation switch then to aggregate the >> chassis at the core location. Do you have any recommendations on 10G >> switches? >> > > Not really, just stick with one of the major brands and you _should_ be > fine. > > >> >> Yes I realize the math is a little backwards as this is all hypothetical >> at this point. We would provision each ONT as a shared 1Gbps offering >> similar to Google Fiber. We know there will be a large amount of >> oversubscription as no one really uses a full Gbps or anywhere close to it. >> I just wanted to stress the point that carrier redundancy at the 10G level >> would be a requirement for the core router, and it should of course have >> 10G links going to the uplinks on the aggregation switch. I think the Cisco >> ASR9k and the Juniper MX line will do well. Not sure if there are any >> others that can handle this level of traffic on the BGP side? >> > > That's reasonable IMO and yes, I think the Juniper MX can handle that as > well as some other functions for you related to subscriber management if > you want. The MX line has a full BRAS set of capabilities built into it > that it inherited from the older ERX line, but they're commonly deployed > without using any of them of as well. > > >> >> So we have a 10G aggregation switch to aggregate the chassis uplink >> connections, and a 10G router BGP capable router. >> >> I really liked your article on DHCP vs PPP for DSL networks. We >> definitely agree the way to go is with a DHCP server. A couple of items >> your article left as big questions: >> > > >> 1. The article mentioned DHCP doesn't do the other part of what PPPoE or >> PPPoA does, which is generate RADIUS accounting records that give us the >> bandwidth information. So that’s one of the main challenges in switching to >> a DHCP based system. So, how do you handle bandwidth tracking in an all >> DHCP environment then? If I want to track how many GB a customer used last >> month, or the average Mbps used how do you do so? >> > > There are a few ways to get at that problem. You can use Netflow/IPFIX > collection to gather the usage from your router, accepting that you're only > going to get information on layer 3 traffic, which generally isn't a > problem. You will need to match the IPs up against your Option 82 parsing > which will give you the circuit ID, IP address, and WAN MAC of the ONT. > You can also poll your shelves via SNMP, CLI, TL-1, and/or Netconf to > collect the data and put it into a database in much the same way you can > use RADIUS accounting data. > > >> >> 2. I liked your option 82 example, and that works well for DSL networks >> where one port is tied to one customer. But how does option 82 work when >> you have multiple customers hanging off a GPON port? What does GPON use a >> subport identifier? >> > > Yep, the different vendors implement it slightly differently, usually the > ONT MAC/serial will be included or the ONT ID will be included. Talk with > your vendor, all the major OLT vendors are very familiar with Option 82 and > in many cases they can tailor what their boxes send to make it easier for > you. > > > >> 3. You mentioned, DHCP is again, not a authentication protocol. So what >> handles authentication then if only DHCP is used, and there are no >> usernames and passwords? I guess for DSL networks you can enable or disable >> the port to allow or disallow access, and Option 82 for identification? I >> assume you wouldn't want to shut off the GPON OLT port if one customer >> wasn't paying their bill as it would affect the other customers on that >> port. I assume access vendors allow you to shut down the sub port or ONT in >> this situation for GPON? Still that seems messy having to login to a shelf >> or EMS system or API to an EMS system especially if you have multiple >> access vendors in a network. Is there a way to do authentication with DHCP? >> What about open networks like wifi where anyone can connect, so you don't >> have the ability to turn of the port or disable the end device? >> 4. I don't think anyone is buying a BRAS anymore, but looks like Cisco, >> Juniper, and ALU have what they call BGN, Broadband Subscriber Management, >> and other similar software. How are these different from BRAS functionality? >> > > First, if you can manage it turn on DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON > network. AFAIK only Calix has announced this functionality, but I expect > the others to follow suit now that there is an official effort at CableLabs > to allow that. > > > http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/docsis/calix-launches-docsis-provisioning-of-gpon/d/d-id/709859 > > The notion of managing ports and profiles via (an ever changing) shelf API > is one of the main reasons that telco billing systems cost so much compared > to cable billing systems. If you can't swing DPoG then you're kind of > stuck, either you can implement the API your vendor supplies with your > billing system, manage the profile assignment manually (yuck), or just > provision everyone with the same speed (only works for data only > deployments), or go down the older route of putting in a BRAS and making > sure the ONTs you're deploying have a PPPoE client embedded in them. > Having to deploy an external router for each customer, which I've seen > some operators do, makes your install costs higher and makes > troubleshooting harder. > > >> So it looks like there are open source and commercial solutions for DHCP >> and DNS. Some providers like Infloblox seems to integrate all these into >> one. >> >> So if we have a core router that speaks BGP, a 10G aggregation switch to >> aggregate the the chassis, and a device like Infloblox or the other >> commercial solutions you mentioned that do DHCP/DNS, is there anything else >> that is needed besides the access gear already mentioned in the >> assumptions? Are these large and expensive commercial BGN/Broadband >> Subscriber management products a thing of the past or still very relevant >> in todays environment? >> > > They're not very relevant, once the the OLT vendors realized they could > snoop the DHCP session and enforce what the server provided the need for > subscriber management pieces really dropped. You've listed the bare > essentials for a functional network, there are lots of things that are > helpful or useful, but what you have is functional. Having said all of > that, there are some relatively unobtrusive ways to have some level of > authentication, I just don't think they're very valuable. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >>> "What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>> uplinks >>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>> would be much more expensive?" >>> >>> Definitely aggregate into a switch first unless you want to run a Layer >>> 3 switch as your router, which I don't recommend. >>> >>> >>> "Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>> full >>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >>> switch?" >>> >>> Your math is a little backwards, its very unlikely that you're going to >>> have 40 Gbps of Internet (or other interconnection) for the router to >>> actually have to process. What is the average provisioned speed for each >>> of the 10k PON ports? What over subscription rate are you planning for? >>> What, if anything, will you be carrying on net, ie bandwidth consumption >>> that won't come from or go to the public Internet? Your own video, voice, >>> or other service are examples of things that are often on net. In any case >>> you're probably in the ASR family with Cisco and I can't remember >>> the equivalent from Juniper. >>> >>> >>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, >>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >>> >>> CGN is the option of last resort IMO, but you may have to consider it. >>> A better approach is to see if your backbone providers will agree to give >>> some blocks that you can announce and use those blocks for dynamic >>> customers only. Your static IP customers should come from your direct ARIN >>> allotment in case you need to choose a new backbone provider, which is >>> extremely common over time. >>> >>> >>> "Dynamic IP >>> addresses? DHCP?" >>> >>> DHCP with enforcement from the shelves. All the major OLT vendors >>> support doing this so that a customer can only use the address assigned to >>> him by DHCP and nothing else, except for those customers that you choose to >>> hard code. Make most of your "static" customers actually DHCP reservations >>> and only hard code those that you must. >>> >>> "How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per >>> Customer >>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts?" >>> >>> DHCP, with Option 82 logging for the circuit ID is the better path than >>> a BRAS (PPPoE) these days. Here's a paper we put together on that topic a >>> while back: >>> >>> >>> http://www.zcorum.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Should-I-Move-from-PPPoA-or-PPPoE-to-DHCP.pdf >>> >>> Depending on your OLT vendor you can either use their built in port >>> isolation or QinQ tagging, both are reliable and scalable, just ask your >>> vendor which is the best option for your specific gear. >>> >>> >>> >>> "If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? >>> The >>> core router, a linux box, or something else?" >>> >>> I wouldn't have those two services connected personally, though there >>> are hooks for some of the CGN boxes to talk to DHCP servers. I would hope >>> you can get another 6k addresses and avoid the need for CGN altogether. >>> Having said that, have you tested your OLTs and ONTs for IPv6 >>> interoperability? If they don't handle it well then you're going to have >>> to think about alternatives like 6RD ( >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment) >>> >>> For DHCP at your scale you can run ISC DHCP ( >>> http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/) which is the most common open >>> source DHCP daemon if you someone who can take care of a Linux server, >>> parse the Option 82 information for logging, and handle the configuration >>> of the DHCP daemon itself. Otherwise you might want to look at commercial >>> products designed for the service provider market like Incongito's BCC and >>> Cisco's BAC (CNR replacement) >>> >>> http://www.incognito.com/products/broadband-command-center/ >>> >>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-management/broadband-access-center/index.html >>> >>> >>> "What about DNS? >>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>> What else is needed?" >>> >>> There are two kinds of DNS, caching (recursive) and authoritative. The >>> first is what your customers will use to resolve things on the Internet and >>> the second is used to provide caching name servers on the Internet with >>> information about domains you control (are authoritative for). The first >>> needs good performance, availability, and scalability since your customers >>> will use your caching name servers constantly. Most people can run BIND at >>> your scale, again if you have someone with Linux experience, but there are >>> other alternatives. PowerDNS has both caching and authoritative modules >>> and there are some commercial offerings out there both as cloud hosting and >>> local deployments. Your backbone provider will also often have caching >>> name servers your customers can use, but the quality varies quite a bit. >>> You can also, especially at first, leverage some of the free offerings >>> like Google's DNS. I don't recommend firewalls for service provider >>> networks, but you should make sure your gear can run (and is configured to >>> do so) BCP 38. >>> >>> >>> Scott Helms >>> Vice President of Technology >>> ZCorum >>> (678) 507-5000 >>> -------------------------------- >>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from >>>> the >>>> ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to >>>> provide and manage residential and business internet services similar to >>>> the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone >>>> services are not to be considered only internet. >>>> >>>> Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: >>>> 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town (each >>>> POP >>>> has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. >>>> Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location >>>> Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports >>>> populated to >>>> serve the area. >>>> 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged mode. >>>> Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs >>>> All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the >>>> ONTs >>>> is already in place >>>> ASN from ARIN >>>> /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN >>>> 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers >>>> >>>> Questions are: >>>> >>>> What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>>> uplinks >>>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>>> would be much more expensive? >>>> Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>>> full >>>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >>>> switch? >>>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP >>>> addresses, >>>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >>>> Dynamic IP >>>> addresses? DHCP? >>>> How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per >>>> Customer >>>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts? >>>> If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? >>>> The >>>> core router, a linux box, or something else? >>>> What about DNS? >>>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>>> What else is needed? >>>> >>>> Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at >>>> building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors >>>> are >>>> willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the >>>> operator/city to answer these harder questions. >>>> >>>> How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the >>>> resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was >>>> not >>>> used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was used >>>> I >>>> think many of these questions would be the same. >>>> >>> >>> >> > From khelms at zcorum.com Thu Jul 31 18:51:32 2014 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:51:32 -0400 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzNTVor4GSZHrR4m-ZfrRQ_Cx3ua5y0PLZO+-ETcUjD2Yg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDdSzM-A14jXu_8F3UwYcuctLPFK4FUCdXJsnDMDsLuTNPPEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxibV_qL1r=jMDhgAtfqZGxBHeB73aGtt27P9F1BcoSqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDdSzNTVor4GSZHrR4m-ZfrRQ_Cx3ua5y0PLZO+-ETcUjD2Yg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMrdfRzJj93AsDA6=CTnkT9rG02+dZo-q+ms0XZSFfW0cA27VA@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote: > I have read both the Juniper MX and Cisco ASR9K do support this advanced > BRAS functionality, what Juniper calls Subscriber Feature Management and > what Cisco calls BGN. These software functions run on the router itself, > however the are not free or included with the base chassis. To enable these > you must pay a hefty fee. So you are saying that these advanced feature > packs that the largest networking markers in the world sell are really not > needed anymore due to advancements on the access vendor side of the house? > From the reading I have done about these solutions, it is kind of like > PPPoE with a radius setup, but instead DHCP option 82 with a radius setup. > These routers are also capable of running a local DHCP server, but I am not > sure if that is recommended. > Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. There are several options, like matching on Option 82 or redirecting to a web page, but at the end of the day I don't believe they're worth the time or expense. Keep in mind that earlier in my career I was a huge proponent of BRAS architecture and I've put in everything from Nortel Shasta's to Lucent Terminators, to Redbacks, to Juniper ERXs and several more models I can't remember. Once you get past the whole lack of authentication, which was never very secure, and understand that you can depend on Option 82 to tell you where a session came from physically the rest is just finding away to count and account for bits. Oh, and I never recommend running the DHCP daemon on a piece of networking gear for service providers. > > The DPoE DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON network is interesting, but is > that really relevant for a new provider if they don't have cable CMTS > systems already deployed. Sure, it makes sense for the cable compaines who > have already bought billing systems and are used to living in > a DOCSIS world. But if you were starting fresh from the group up are you > recommending we look at GPON providers like Calix because they support DPoE > so we can buy DOCIS billing systems? That is an interesting concept. > I'd strongly recommend finding a vendor that says they will support it on the shelves you're going to buy even if they don't today. Even if you're not doing DOCSIS cable modems and don't ever plan to the provisioning paradigm (DHCP, TFTP, ToD) is much simpler than the proprietary north bound (usually SOAP) API that direct integration requires. You can even build your own provisioning system with a little scripting and there are many more commercial options than there are for direct integration to the shelves. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Scott, >>> >>> Thanks for the long post. >>> >>> We will use a layer 2 10G aggregation switch then to aggregate the >>> chassis at the core location. Do you have any recommendations on 10G >>> switches? >>> >> >> Not really, just stick with one of the major brands and you _should_ be >> fine. >> >> >>> >>> Yes I realize the math is a little backwards as this is all hypothetical >>> at this point. We would provision each ONT as a shared 1Gbps offering >>> similar to Google Fiber. We know there will be a large amount of >>> oversubscription as no one really uses a full Gbps or anywhere close to it. >>> I just wanted to stress the point that carrier redundancy at the 10G level >>> would be a requirement for the core router, and it should of course have >>> 10G links going to the uplinks on the aggregation switch. I think the Cisco >>> ASR9k and the Juniper MX line will do well. Not sure if there are any >>> others that can handle this level of traffic on the BGP side? >>> >> >> That's reasonable IMO and yes, I think the Juniper MX can handle that as >> well as some other functions for you related to subscriber management if >> you want. The MX line has a full BRAS set of capabilities built into it >> that it inherited from the older ERX line, but they're commonly deployed >> without using any of them of as well. >> >> >>> >>> So we have a 10G aggregation switch to aggregate the chassis uplink >>> connections, and a 10G router BGP capable router. >>> >>> I really liked your article on DHCP vs PPP for DSL networks. We >>> definitely agree the way to go is with a DHCP server. A couple of items >>> your article left as big questions: >>> >> >> >>> 1. The article mentioned DHCP doesn't do the other part of what PPPoE or >>> PPPoA does, which is generate RADIUS accounting records that give us the >>> bandwidth information. So that’s one of the main challenges in switching to >>> a DHCP based system. So, how do you handle bandwidth tracking in an all >>> DHCP environment then? If I want to track how many GB a customer used last >>> month, or the average Mbps used how do you do so? >>> >> >> There are a few ways to get at that problem. You can use Netflow/IPFIX >> collection to gather the usage from your router, accepting that you're only >> going to get information on layer 3 traffic, which generally isn't a >> problem. You will need to match the IPs up against your Option 82 parsing >> which will give you the circuit ID, IP address, and WAN MAC of the ONT. >> You can also poll your shelves via SNMP, CLI, TL-1, and/or Netconf to >> collect the data and put it into a database in much the same way you can >> use RADIUS accounting data. >> >> >>> >>> 2. I liked your option 82 example, and that works well for DSL networks >>> where one port is tied to one customer. But how does option 82 work when >>> you have multiple customers hanging off a GPON port? What does GPON use a >>> subport identifier? >>> >> >> Yep, the different vendors implement it slightly differently, usually the >> ONT MAC/serial will be included or the ONT ID will be included. Talk with >> your vendor, all the major OLT vendors are very familiar with Option 82 and >> in many cases they can tailor what their boxes send to make it easier for >> you. >> >> >> >>> 3. You mentioned, DHCP is again, not a authentication protocol. So what >>> handles authentication then if only DHCP is used, and there are no >>> usernames and passwords? I guess for DSL networks you can enable or disable >>> the port to allow or disallow access, and Option 82 for identification? I >>> assume you wouldn't want to shut off the GPON OLT port if one customer >>> wasn't paying their bill as it would affect the other customers on that >>> port. I assume access vendors allow you to shut down the sub port or ONT in >>> this situation for GPON? Still that seems messy having to login to a shelf >>> or EMS system or API to an EMS system especially if you have multiple >>> access vendors in a network. Is there a way to do authentication with DHCP? >>> What about open networks like wifi where anyone can connect, so you don't >>> have the ability to turn of the port or disable the end device? >>> 4. I don't think anyone is buying a BRAS anymore, but looks like Cisco, >>> Juniper, and ALU have what they call BGN, Broadband Subscriber Management, >>> and other similar software. How are these different from BRAS functionality? >>> >> >> First, if you can manage it turn on DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON >> network. AFAIK only Calix has announced this functionality, but I expect >> the others to follow suit now that there is an official effort at CableLabs >> to allow that. >> >> >> http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/docsis/calix-launches-docsis-provisioning-of-gpon/d/d-id/709859 >> >> The notion of managing ports and profiles via (an ever changing) shelf >> API is one of the main reasons that telco billing systems cost so much >> compared to cable billing systems. If you can't swing DPoG then you're >> kind of stuck, either you can implement the API your vendor supplies with >> your billing system, manage the profile assignment manually (yuck), or just >> provision everyone with the same speed (only works for data only >> deployments), or go down the older route of putting in a BRAS and making >> sure the ONTs you're deploying have a PPPoE client embedded in them. >> Having to deploy an external router for each customer, which I've seen >> some operators do, makes your install costs higher and makes >> troubleshooting harder. >> >> >>> So it looks like there are open source and commercial solutions for DHCP >>> and DNS. Some providers like Infloblox seems to integrate all these into >>> one. >>> >>> So if we have a core router that speaks BGP, a 10G aggregation switch to >>> aggregate the the chassis, and a device like Infloblox or the other >>> commercial solutions you mentioned that do DHCP/DNS, is there anything else >>> that is needed besides the access gear already mentioned in the >>> assumptions? Are these large and expensive commercial BGN/Broadband >>> Subscriber management products a thing of the past or still very relevant >>> in todays environment? >>> >> >> They're not very relevant, once the the OLT vendors realized they could >> snoop the DHCP session and enforce what the server provided the need for >> subscriber management pieces really dropped. You've listed the bare >> essentials for a functional network, there are lots of things that are >> helpful or useful, but what you have is functional. Having said all of >> that, there are some relatively unobtrusive ways to have some level of >> authentication, I just don't think they're very valuable. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>>> uplinks >>>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>>> would be much more expensive?" >>>> >>>> Definitely aggregate into a switch first unless you want to run a Layer >>>> 3 switch as your router, which I don't recommend. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>>> full >>>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >>>> switch?" >>>> >>>> Your math is a little backwards, its very unlikely that you're going to >>>> have 40 Gbps of Internet (or other interconnection) for the router to >>>> actually have to process. What is the average provisioned speed for each >>>> of the 10k PON ports? What over subscription rate are you planning for? >>>> What, if anything, will you be carrying on net, ie bandwidth consumption >>>> that won't come from or go to the public Internet? Your own video, voice, >>>> or other service are examples of things that are often on net. In any case >>>> you're probably in the ASR family with Cisco and I can't remember >>>> the equivalent from Juniper. >>>> >>>> >>>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP >>>> addresses, >>>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >>>> >>>> CGN is the option of last resort IMO, but you may have to consider it. >>>> A better approach is to see if your backbone providers will agree to give >>>> some blocks that you can announce and use those blocks for dynamic >>>> customers only. Your static IP customers should come from your direct ARIN >>>> allotment in case you need to choose a new backbone provider, which is >>>> extremely common over time. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Dynamic IP >>>> addresses? DHCP?" >>>> >>>> DHCP with enforcement from the shelves. All the major OLT vendors >>>> support doing this so that a customer can only use the address assigned to >>>> him by DHCP and nothing else, except for those customers that you choose to >>>> hard code. Make most of your "static" customers actually DHCP reservations >>>> and only hard code those that you must. >>>> >>>> "How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per >>>> Customer >>>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older >>>> concepts?" >>>> >>>> DHCP, with Option 82 logging for the circuit ID is the better path than >>>> a BRAS (PPPoE) these days. Here's a paper we put together on that topic a >>>> while back: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.zcorum.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Should-I-Move-from-PPPoA-or-PPPoE-to-DHCP.pdf >>>> >>>> Depending on your OLT vendor you can either use their built in port >>>> isolation or QinQ tagging, both are reliable and scalable, just ask your >>>> vendor which is the best option for your specific gear. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? >>>> The >>>> core router, a linux box, or something else?" >>>> >>>> I wouldn't have those two services connected personally, though there >>>> are hooks for some of the CGN boxes to talk to DHCP servers. I would hope >>>> you can get another 6k addresses and avoid the need for CGN altogether. >>>> Having said that, have you tested your OLTs and ONTs for IPv6 >>>> interoperability? If they don't handle it well then you're going to have >>>> to think about alternatives like 6RD ( >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment) >>>> >>>> For DHCP at your scale you can run ISC DHCP ( >>>> http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/) which is the most common open >>>> source DHCP daemon if you someone who can take care of a Linux server, >>>> parse the Option 82 information for logging, and handle the configuration >>>> of the DHCP daemon itself. Otherwise you might want to look at commercial >>>> products designed for the service provider market like Incongito's BCC and >>>> Cisco's BAC (CNR replacement) >>>> >>>> http://www.incognito.com/products/broadband-command-center/ >>>> >>>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-management/broadband-access-center/index.html >>>> >>>> >>>> "What about DNS? >>>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>>> What else is needed?" >>>> >>>> There are two kinds of DNS, caching (recursive) and authoritative. The >>>> first is what your customers will use to resolve things on the Internet and >>>> the second is used to provide caching name servers on the Internet with >>>> information about domains you control (are authoritative for). The first >>>> needs good performance, availability, and scalability since your customers >>>> will use your caching name servers constantly. Most people can run BIND at >>>> your scale, again if you have someone with Linux experience, but there are >>>> other alternatives. PowerDNS has both caching and authoritative modules >>>> and there are some commercial offerings out there both as cloud hosting and >>>> local deployments. Your backbone provider will also often have caching >>>> name servers your customers can use, but the quality varies quite a bit. >>>> You can also, especially at first, leverage some of the free offerings >>>> like Google's DNS. I don't recommend firewalls for service provider >>>> networks, but you should make sure your gear can run (and is configured to >>>> do so) BCP 38. >>>> >>>> >>>> Scott Helms >>>> Vice President of Technology >>>> ZCorum >>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from >>>>> the >>>>> ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to >>>>> provide and manage residential and business internet services similar >>>>> to >>>>> the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone >>>>> services are not to be considered only internet. >>>>> >>>>> Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: >>>>> 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town >>>>> (each POP >>>>> has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. >>>>> Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location >>>>> Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports >>>>> populated to >>>>> serve the area. >>>>> 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged >>>>> mode. >>>>> Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs >>>>> All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the >>>>> ONTs >>>>> is already in place >>>>> ASN from ARIN >>>>> /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN >>>>> 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers >>>>> >>>>> Questions are: >>>>> >>>>> What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>>>> uplinks >>>>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>>>> would be much more expensive? >>>>> Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>>>> full >>>>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >>>>> switch? >>>>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP >>>>> addresses, >>>>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>>>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >>>>> Dynamic IP >>>>> addresses? DHCP? >>>>> How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per >>>>> Customer >>>>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>>>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older >>>>> concepts? >>>>> If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? >>>>> The >>>>> core router, a linux box, or something else? >>>>> What about DNS? >>>>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>>>> What else is needed? >>>>> >>>>> Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at >>>>> building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors >>>>> are >>>>> willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the >>>>> operator/city to answer these harder questions. >>>>> >>>>> How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the >>>>> resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was >>>>> not >>>>> used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was >>>>> used I >>>>> think many of these questions would be the same. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > From colton.conor at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 19:58:20 2014 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:58:20 -0500 Subject: Greenfield Access Network In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRzJj93AsDA6=CTnkT9rG02+dZo-q+ms0XZSFfW0cA27VA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMDdSzOEPGLmtAk4Ds2O4wp+EbzfrR9DwnYTYr9nKKzBW35UtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRwqPGAtjy=4wU-XD-qKKVDitZ=u4hfSp+SBqxF-UoZrkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDdSzM-A14jXu_8F3UwYcuctLPFK4FUCdXJsnDMDsLuTNPPEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRxibV_qL1r=jMDhgAtfqZGxBHeB73aGtt27P9F1BcoSqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDdSzNTVor4GSZHrR4m-ZfrRQ_Cx3ua5y0PLZO+-ETcUjD2Yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrdfRzJj93AsDA6=CTnkT9rG02+dZo-q+ms0XZSFfW0cA27VA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAMDdSzNmX4Pz=JZ=rkBi9pKqWMxdqhcH75rq8e2R5ny-2OfTrg@mail.gmail.com> Scott, Thank you for your input. What do you recommend for network segmentation? A VLAN per Chassis, a VLAN per service, or a VLAN per customer/port? When you say qinq VLANs are you referring to the CVLAN model? I am really interested to know how the largest providers, like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon setup their residential networks. Little information is available on the internet besides the access platforms they use. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I have read both the Juniper MX and Cisco ASR9K do support this advanced >> BRAS functionality, what Juniper calls Subscriber Feature Management and >> what Cisco calls BGN. These software functions run on the router itself, >> however the are not free or included with the base chassis. To enable these >> you must pay a hefty fee. So you are saying that these advanced feature >> packs that the largest networking markers in the world sell are really not >> needed anymore due to advancements on the access vendor side of the house? >> From the reading I have done about these solutions, it is kind of like >> PPPoE with a radius setup, but instead DHCP option 82 with a radius setup. >> These routers are also capable of running a local DHCP server, but I am not >> sure if that is recommended. >> > > Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. There are several options, like matching > on Option 82 or redirecting to a web page, but at the end of the day I > don't believe they're worth the time or expense. Keep in mind that earlier > in my career I was a huge proponent of BRAS architecture and I've put in > everything from Nortel Shasta's to Lucent Terminators, to Redbacks, to > Juniper ERXs and several more models I can't remember. Once you get past > the whole lack of authentication, which was never very secure, and > understand that you can depend on Option 82 to tell you where a session > came from physically the rest is just finding away to count and account for > bits. > > Oh, and I never recommend running the DHCP daemon on a piece of networking > gear for service providers. > > >> >> The DPoE DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON network is interesting, but is >> that really relevant for a new provider if they don't have cable CMTS >> systems already deployed. Sure, it makes sense for the cable compaines who >> have already bought billing systems and are used to living in >> a DOCSIS world. But if you were starting fresh from the group up are you >> recommending we look at GPON providers like Calix because they support DPoE >> so we can buy DOCIS billing systems? That is an interesting concept. >> > > I'd strongly recommend finding a vendor that says they will support it on > the shelves you're going to buy even if they don't today. Even if you're > not doing DOCSIS cable modems and don't ever plan to the provisioning > paradigm (DHCP, TFTP, ToD) is much simpler than the proprietary north bound > (usually SOAP) API that direct integration requires. You can even build > your own provisioning system with a little scripting and there are many > more commercial options than there are for direct integration to the > shelves. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Scott, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the long post. >>>> >>>> We will use a layer 2 10G aggregation switch then to aggregate the >>>> chassis at the core location. Do you have any recommendations on 10G >>>> switches? >>>> >>> >>> Not really, just stick with one of the major brands and you _should_ be >>> fine. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Yes I realize the math is a little backwards as this is >>>> all hypothetical at this point. We would provision each ONT as a shared >>>> 1Gbps offering similar to Google Fiber. We know there will be a large >>>> amount of oversubscription as no one really uses a full Gbps or anywhere >>>> close to it. I just wanted to stress the point that carrier redundancy at >>>> the 10G level would be a requirement for the core router, and it should of >>>> course have 10G links going to the uplinks on the aggregation switch. I >>>> think the Cisco ASR9k and the Juniper MX line will do well. Not sure if >>>> there are any others that can handle this level of traffic on the BGP side? >>>> >>> >>> That's reasonable IMO and yes, I think the Juniper MX can handle that as >>> well as some other functions for you related to subscriber management if >>> you want. The MX line has a full BRAS set of capabilities built into it >>> that it inherited from the older ERX line, but they're commonly deployed >>> without using any of them of as well. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> So we have a 10G aggregation switch to aggregate the chassis uplink >>>> connections, and a 10G router BGP capable router. >>>> >>>> I really liked your article on DHCP vs PPP for DSL networks. We >>>> definitely agree the way to go is with a DHCP server. A couple of items >>>> your article left as big questions: >>>> >>> >>> >>>> 1. The article mentioned DHCP doesn't do the other part of what PPPoE >>>> or PPPoA does, which is generate RADIUS accounting records that give us the >>>> bandwidth information. So that’s one of the main challenges in switching to >>>> a DHCP based system. So, how do you handle bandwidth tracking in an all >>>> DHCP environment then? If I want to track how many GB a customer used last >>>> month, or the average Mbps used how do you do so? >>>> >>> >>> There are a few ways to get at that problem. You can use Netflow/IPFIX >>> collection to gather the usage from your router, accepting that you're only >>> going to get information on layer 3 traffic, which generally isn't a >>> problem. You will need to match the IPs up against your Option 82 parsing >>> which will give you the circuit ID, IP address, and WAN MAC of the ONT. >>> You can also poll your shelves via SNMP, CLI, TL-1, and/or Netconf to >>> collect the data and put it into a database in much the same way you can >>> use RADIUS accounting data. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 2. I liked your option 82 example, and that works well for DSL networks >>>> where one port is tied to one customer. But how does option 82 work when >>>> you have multiple customers hanging off a GPON port? What does GPON use a >>>> subport identifier? >>>> >>> >>> Yep, the different vendors implement it slightly differently, usually >>> the ONT MAC/serial will be included or the ONT ID will be included. Talk >>> with your vendor, all the major OLT vendors are very familiar with Option >>> 82 and in many cases they can tailor what their boxes send to make it >>> easier for you. >>> >>> >>> >>>> 3. You mentioned, DHCP is again, not a authentication protocol. So what >>>> handles authentication then if only DHCP is used, and there are no >>>> usernames and passwords? I guess for DSL networks you can enable or disable >>>> the port to allow or disallow access, and Option 82 for identification? I >>>> assume you wouldn't want to shut off the GPON OLT port if one customer >>>> wasn't paying their bill as it would affect the other customers on that >>>> port. I assume access vendors allow you to shut down the sub port or ONT in >>>> this situation for GPON? Still that seems messy having to login to a shelf >>>> or EMS system or API to an EMS system especially if you have multiple >>>> access vendors in a network. Is there a way to do authentication with DHCP? >>>> What about open networks like wifi where anyone can connect, so you don't >>>> have the ability to turn of the port or disable the end device? >>>> 4. I don't think anyone is buying a BRAS anymore, but looks like Cisco, >>>> Juniper, and ALU have what they call BGN, Broadband Subscriber Management, >>>> and other similar software. How are these different from BRAS functionality? >>>> >>> >>> First, if you can manage it turn on DOCSIS provisioning of your GPON >>> network. AFAIK only Calix has announced this functionality, but I expect >>> the others to follow suit now that there is an official effort at CableLabs >>> to allow that. >>> >>> >>> http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/docsis/calix-launches-docsis-provisioning-of-gpon/d/d-id/709859 >>> >>> The notion of managing ports and profiles via (an ever changing) shelf >>> API is one of the main reasons that telco billing systems cost so much >>> compared to cable billing systems. If you can't swing DPoG then you're >>> kind of stuck, either you can implement the API your vendor supplies with >>> your billing system, manage the profile assignment manually (yuck), or just >>> provision everyone with the same speed (only works for data only >>> deployments), or go down the older route of putting in a BRAS and making >>> sure the ONTs you're deploying have a PPPoE client embedded in them. >>> Having to deploy an external router for each customer, which I've seen >>> some operators do, makes your install costs higher and makes >>> troubleshooting harder. >>> >>> >>>> So it looks like there are open source and commercial solutions for >>>> DHCP and DNS. Some providers like Infloblox seems to integrate all these >>>> into one. >>>> >>>> So if we have a core router that speaks BGP, a 10G aggregation switch >>>> to aggregate the the chassis, and a device like Infloblox or the other >>>> commercial solutions you mentioned that do DHCP/DNS, is there anything else >>>> that is needed besides the access gear already mentioned in the >>>> assumptions? Are these large and expensive commercial BGN/Broadband >>>> Subscriber management products a thing of the past or still very relevant >>>> in todays environment? >>>> >>> >>> They're not very relevant, once the the OLT vendors realized they could >>> snoop the DHCP session and enforce what the server provided the need for >>> subscriber management pieces really dropped. You've listed the bare >>> essentials for a functional network, there are lots of things that are >>> helpful or useful, but what you have is functional. Having said all of >>> that, there are some relatively unobtrusive ways to have some level of >>> authentication, I just don't think they're very valuable. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>>>> uplinks >>>>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>>>> would be much more expensive?" >>>>> >>>>> Definitely aggregate into a switch first unless you want to run a >>>>> Layer 3 switch as your router, which I don't recommend. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>>>> full >>>>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation >>>>> switch?" >>>>> >>>>> Your math is a little backwards, its very unlikely that you're going >>>>> to have 40 Gbps of Internet (or other interconnection) for the router to >>>>> actually have to process. What is the average provisioned speed for each >>>>> of the 10k PON ports? What over subscription rate are you planning for? >>>>> What, if anything, will you be carrying on net, ie bandwidth consumption >>>>> that won't come from or go to the public Internet? Your own video, voice, >>>>> or other service are examples of things that are often on net. In any case >>>>> you're probably in the ASR family with Cisco and I can't remember >>>>> the equivalent from Juniper. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP >>>>> addresses, >>>>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>>>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >>>>> >>>>> CGN is the option of last resort IMO, but you may have to consider it. >>>>> A better approach is to see if your backbone providers will agree to give >>>>> some blocks that you can announce and use those blocks for dynamic >>>>> customers only. Your static IP customers should come from your direct ARIN >>>>> allotment in case you need to choose a new backbone provider, which is >>>>> extremely common over time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Dynamic IP >>>>> addresses? DHCP?" >>>>> >>>>> DHCP with enforcement from the shelves. All the major OLT vendors >>>>> support doing this so that a customer can only use the address assigned to >>>>> him by DHCP and nothing else, except for those customers that you choose to >>>>> hard code. Make most of your "static" customers actually DHCP reservations >>>>> and only hard code those that you must. >>>>> >>>>> "How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per >>>>> Customer >>>>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>>>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older >>>>> concepts?" >>>>> >>>>> DHCP, with Option 82 logging for the circuit ID is the better path >>>>> than a BRAS (PPPoE) these days. Here's a paper we put together on that >>>>> topic a while back: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.zcorum.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Should-I-Move-from-PPPoA-or-PPPoE-to-DHCP.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Depending on your OLT vendor you can either use their built in port >>>>> isolation or QinQ tagging, both are reliable and scalable, just ask your >>>>> vendor which is the best option for your specific gear. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? >>>>> The >>>>> core router, a linux box, or something else?" >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't have those two services connected personally, though there >>>>> are hooks for some of the CGN boxes to talk to DHCP servers. I would hope >>>>> you can get another 6k addresses and avoid the need for CGN altogether. >>>>> Having said that, have you tested your OLTs and ONTs for IPv6 >>>>> interoperability? If they don't handle it well then you're going to have >>>>> to think about alternatives like 6RD ( >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment) >>>>> >>>>> For DHCP at your scale you can run ISC DHCP ( >>>>> http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/) which is the most common open >>>>> source DHCP daemon if you someone who can take care of a Linux server, >>>>> parse the Option 82 information for logging, and handle the configuration >>>>> of the DHCP daemon itself. Otherwise you might want to look at commercial >>>>> products designed for the service provider market like Incongito's BCC and >>>>> Cisco's BAC (CNR replacement) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.incognito.com/products/broadband-command-center/ >>>>> >>>>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-management/broadband-access-center/index.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "What about DNS? >>>>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>>>> What else is needed?" >>>>> >>>>> There are two kinds of DNS, caching (recursive) and authoritative. >>>>> The first is what your customers will use to resolve things on the >>>>> Internet and the second is used to provide caching name servers on the >>>>> Internet with information about domains you control (are authoritative >>>>> for). The first needs good performance, availability, and >>>>> scalability since your customers will use your caching name servers >>>>> constantly. Most people can run BIND at your scale, again if you have >>>>> someone with Linux experience, but there are other alternatives. PowerDNS >>>>> has both caching and authoritative modules and there are some commercial >>>>> offerings out there both as cloud hosting and local deployments. Your >>>>> backbone provider will also often have caching name servers your customers >>>>> can use, but the quality varies quite a bit. You can also, especially at >>>>> first, leverage some of the free offerings like Google's DNS. I >>>>> don't recommend firewalls for service provider networks, but you should >>>>> make sure your gear can run (and is configured to do so) BCP 38. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Scott Helms >>>>> Vice President of Technology >>>>> ZCorum >>>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network >>>>>> from the >>>>>> ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to >>>>>> provide and manage residential and business internet services similar >>>>>> to >>>>>> the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone >>>>>> services are not to be considered only internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: >>>>>> 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town >>>>>> (each POP >>>>>> has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. >>>>>> Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location >>>>>> Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports >>>>>> populated to >>>>>> serve the area. >>>>>> 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged >>>>>> mode. >>>>>> Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs >>>>>> All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the >>>>>> ONTs >>>>>> is already in place >>>>>> ASN from ARIN >>>>>> /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN >>>>>> 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions are: >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the >>>>>> uplinks >>>>>> of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router >>>>>> would be much more expensive? >>>>>> Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with >>>>>> full >>>>>> tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G >>>>>> aggregation >>>>>> switch? >>>>>> How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP >>>>>> addresses, >>>>>> but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that >>>>>> getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? >>>>>> Dynamic IP >>>>>> addresses? DHCP? >>>>>> How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per >>>>>> Customer >>>>>> VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? >>>>>> Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older >>>>>> concepts? >>>>>> If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? >>>>>> The >>>>>> core router, a linux box, or something else? >>>>>> What about DNS? >>>>>> Is a firewall needed in the core? >>>>>> What else is needed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking >>>>>> at >>>>>> building their own network, and have similar questions. Access >>>>>> vendors are >>>>>> willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the >>>>>> operator/city to answer these harder questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the >>>>>> resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON >>>>>> was not >>>>>> used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was >>>>>> used I >>>>>> think many of these questions would be the same. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >