Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:59:21PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: I think network engineers are too quick to use network identifiers for applications. Analogous to using names or SSNs or anything else as a primary key in a database. The database people already figured out that if you don't assign an identifier used solely for identification purposes, then you can't capture the idea of something changing names (or IPs, or whatever). I think wifi is making this clear; I may connect from various wifi networks, but I'm still me. To deal with roaming mobile devices, we'll have to figure out something to allow us to maintain connectivity while changing IPs, right? Same with DHCP in some cases. -- Kill dash nine, and its no more CPU time, kill dash nine, and that process is mine. -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpD9HAvRrvyg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:23:10AM -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote: RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all understand that) today by many network operators for a reason. I used 10/8 for my LAN a while back until my ISP's routers advertised in DHCP suddenly started using the same 10.0.0.0/24... so I ended up having to renumber, or else I wouldn't route out the WAN link for them. What a pain. I'd name the ISP if I had the Time. -- Kill dash nine, and its no more CPU time, kill dash nine, and that process is mine. -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpmOpPSlzOHR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:19:12AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? Why good ones. NAT is a basic IPv4 firewall. All IPv6 needs to obsolete NAT is a firewall that offers all the features of NAT without requiring the address translation. Then, instead of setting up a port translation for a particular incoming protocol, you simply open up that port without modifying the packets as they flow through. Suddenly, SIP works and incoming VoIP phonecalls work just like on the phone network. There is more to firewalls than NAT and packet filtering, no matter what the Cisco Pix people say. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:04:25PM -, Mark D. Kaye wrote: Hi, PIX/ASA Supports IPv6 Apparently, see below. Don't know anyone who has tested it yet though ;-) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_guide_ chapter09186a0080636f44.html Note Failover does not support IPv6. The ipv6 address command does not support setting standby addresses for failover configurations. The failover interface ip command does not support using IPv6 addresses on the failover and Stateful Failover interfaces. The following inspection engines support IPv6: * FTP * HTTP * ICMP * SMTP * TCP * UDP as opposed to 23 separate application inspection engines listed in a table later on. Granted, some of those protocols don't exist on IPv6, but hardly 17 of 23. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
RE: Google wants to be your Internet
On 1/30/2007 at 12:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? Why good ones. NAT is a basic IPv4 firewall. All IPv6 needs to obsolete NAT is a firewall that offers all the features of NAT without requiring the address translation. Then, instead of setting up a port translation for a particular incoming protocol, you simply open up that port without modifying the packets as they flow through. Suddenly, SIP works and incoming VoIP phonecalls work just like on the phone network. Oh, if it were so easy. Even without NAT our firewalls still need to meddle in the application layer. You'll still need smarts in the firewall to use the bad ol' FTP. And of course although SIP itself usually uses a fixed port, the calls it sets up generally do not. You don't have to modify packets, but you still need to read them, understand the protocol, and add state entries to your firewall. The absence of NAT doesn't really save you much work. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387 B¼information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Google wants to be your Internet
Hi, PIX/ASA Supports IPv6 Apparently, see below. Don't know anyone who has tested it yet though ;-) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_guide_ chapter09186a0080636f44.html Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Abley Sent: 30 January 2007 01:34 To: Brandon Galbraith Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet On 29-Jan-2007, at 20:12, Brandon Galbraith wrote: On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]: IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now. Do a fair amount of appliance firewalls support it? To be fair, I think the question was about good firewalls, not appliances. Joe
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. ... IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
* Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. ... IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. ... IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now. Do a fair amount of appliance firewalls support it? -brandon
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. ... IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now. Which works pretty well if you forget one tiny thing (from pf.conf(5)) | FRAGMENT HANDLING | [...] | Currently, only IPv4 fragments are supported and IPv6 fragments are | blocked unconditionally. which can bite you in the ass pretty hard if you don't expect it. Fragments are valid packets and crucial for many applications, so unconditional blocking (even with a pass inet6 from any to any policy) is bad. Other working solutions are - Linux + nf_conntrack (maybe in a few kernel versions, there was an OOPS in 2.6.20-rc5 with (tadaaa) fragment handling, fixed though) - Cisco ASA and FWSM - IIRC Juniper (Netscreen) firewalls and I guess some more. Regards, Bernhard
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 29-Jan-2007, at 20:12, Brandon Galbraith wrote: On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]: IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now. Do a fair amount of appliance firewalls support it? To be fair, I think the question was about good firewalls, not appliances. Joe
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Joseph S D Yao wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. ... IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? There are vendors on this list that make/sell/support ipv6 firewalls. If you have a need, you should be able to arrange for an eval from several of them. regards joelja
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:57:24 -0500 Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. ... IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones? Checkpoint claims to have supported IPv6 since 2002: http://www.checkpoint.com/press/2002/ipv6_081402.html --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Electric utilities, IP addressing, and BPL (was Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
Hi Josh, According to our own experiments and real deployment experience in this field for many years, IPv6 is the best solution. Because the lack of support of IPv6 in many applications, we also keep IPv4+NAT, so actually is a dual stack situation, but all new sensors, meters, and apps. in general, can easily support IPv6 and make your life much easier. You may not need now IP up to the edge, but sooner or later, it will change, and also the high number of devices and networks that you want to put together. Having enough addresses provides you end to end connectivity, which again, may not be seen now as a real need, but it will become sooner or later. You can find lots of documents, from a project that we finish a couple of years ago at http://www.6power.org. They aren't updated up to the latest technology on this field, but sure are a good reading source. Regards, Jordi De: Josh Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:31 -0800 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Electric utilities, IP addressing, and BPL (was Re: Google wants to be your Internet) * From: Sean Donelan * Date: Tue Jan 23 15:06:02 2007 What do you do when the electric companies split up again, renumber the meters into different network blocks? Thanks for the discussion. It's rare I've seen a thread on NANOG that's so pertinent to my own situation. I work for a fairly large utility faced with these very problems. We are developing a ~half $billion project to replace our electric meters with 2-way communicating ones, and have several other things going, such as intelligent grid projects that will grow the size of our networks many times over. I've also been on a broadband over power line (BPL) project for a year and a half, and have a good understanding of how where it works, and where it doesn't. The US electric distribution grid, is, for the most part, quite dumb. There are various SCADA and fault protection systems out there, but not everything is automated, and certainly not everything is covered. For example, when the power goes out somewhere, almost all of the time, we don't know until we receive calls from customers. Not a proactive system. Not the level of service that our customers want. Intelligent communicating meters are at the core of the modernization of the grid (and of utility profits, if you look at it in certain ways). You'll eventually find these meters tied to time-of-use electric rates (more $$$ during peak times), as well as used as part of an overall instrumentation effort of the grid. Demand response is also a piece of that puzzle. Shaving a few megawatts on a hot day by reducing load (think 50,000 thermostats having their temperature settings moved up a few degrees on a really hot day) can mean avoiding building power plant and/or transmission line capacity. The electric meter is potentially the utility's gateway into a neighborhood or home network, and could enable those applications. Instrumentation of the grid will also take sensor nets, on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of endpoints per distribution system. We'll find similar networks in customer homes - the load control boxes, the thermostats, etc., that will extend from our edge. Potentially, hundreds of thousands more networks there. There are some utilities that will use BPL as a partial or whole transport for metering other utility applications, with the notion that there's enough bandwidth to handle residential access services as well (this will often be via a tenant or other 3rd party). While BPL business cases won't be made without utility applications like meter reading, it's unlikely they'll be made without an access play. The other stuff just doesn't require the bandwidth. Do we need IP all the way to the edge of the network? We don't think so. But the alternatives, such as adding ZigBee mesh networks beyond the IP edge, have their own problems of scale complexity. I've been following the notion that however far our IP network extends out, IPV4 and RFC1918 have plenty of space for us. I'm reminded by this thread, however, that MA activities, among others, might one day bite us for making that assumption. -jg ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Electric utilities, IP addressing, and BPL (was Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
* From: Sean Donelan * Date: Tue Jan 23 15:06:02 2007 What do you do when the electric companies split up again, renumber the meters into different network blocks? Thanks for the discussion. It's rare I've seen a thread on NANOG that's so pertinent to my own situation. I work for a fairly large utility faced with these very problems. We are developing a ~half $billion project to replace our electric meters with 2-way communicating ones, and have several other things going, such as intelligent grid projects that will grow the size of our networks many times over. I've also been on a broadband over power line (BPL) project for a year and a half, and have a good understanding of how where it works, and where it doesn't. The US electric distribution grid, is, for the most part, quite dumb. There are various SCADA and fault protection systems out there, but not everything is automated, and certainly not everything is covered. For example, when the power goes out somewhere, almost all of the time, we don't know until we receive calls from customers. Not a proactive system. Not the level of service that our customers want. Intelligent communicating meters are at the core of the modernization of the grid (and of utility profits, if you look at it in certain ways). You'll eventually find these meters tied to time-of-use electric rates (more $$$ during peak times), as well as used as part of an overall instrumentation effort of the grid. Demand response is also a piece of that puzzle. Shaving a few megawatts on a hot day by reducing load (think 50,000 thermostats having their temperature settings moved up a few degrees on a really hot day) can mean avoiding building power plant and/or transmission line capacity. The electric meter is potentially the utility's gateway into a neighborhood or home network, and could enable those applications. Instrumentation of the grid will also take sensor nets, on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of endpoints per distribution system. We'll find similar networks in customer homes - the load control boxes, the thermostats, etc., that will extend from our edge. Potentially, hundreds of thousands more networks there. There are some utilities that will use BPL as a partial or whole transport for metering other utility applications, with the notion that there's enough bandwidth to handle residential access services as well (this will often be via a tenant or other 3rd party). While BPL business cases won't be made without utility applications like meter reading, it's unlikely they'll be made without an access play. The other stuff just doesn't require the bandwidth. Do we need IP all the way to the edge of the network? We don't think so. But the alternatives, such as adding ZigBee mesh networks beyond the IP edge, have their own problems of scale complexity. I've been following the notion that however far our IP network extends out, IPV4 and RFC1918 have plenty of space for us. I'm reminded by this thread, however, that MA activities, among others, might one day bite us for making that assumption. -jg
RE: Google wants to be your Internet
We also see this with extranet/supply-chain-type connectivity between large companies who have overlapping address space, and I'm afraid it's only going to become more common as more of these types of relationships are established. Fortunately, IP addresses are not intended for use on the Internet. Rather, they are intended for use with Internet Protocol (IP) implementations. That's why the RIRs, in alignment with RFC 2050, section 3(a), do give out IP address allocations to organizations who are connected to extranet-type networks. If you read RFC 1918, section 2, category 3, you will see that this is consistent. So if the power companies want to assign a unique network address to all power meters then there is no good reason to stop them. After all, it is consistent with the goals of the original IP designers to address every light switch and toaster. Just remember, IP addresses are *NOT* Internet addresses. They are Internet Protocol addresses. Connection to the Internet and public announcement of prefixes are totally irrelevant. --Michael Dillon
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just remember, IP addresses are *NOT* Internet addresses. They are Internet Protocol addresses. Connection to the Internet and public announcement of prefixes are totally irrelevant. Of course I understand this, but I also understand that if one can get away with RFC1918 addresses on a non-Internet-connected network, it's not a bad idea to do so in and of itself; quite the opposite, in fact, as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 23 Jan 2007, at 16:48, Sean Donelan wrote: Why is IP required, Because using something that works so well means less wheel reinvention. and even if you used IP for transport why must the meter identification be based on an IP address? Idenification via IP address (exclusively) is bad. I'd argue that if you are looking to check the meter for consumption data and for problems, a store-and-forward message system which didn't depend on always-on connectivity would preserve enough address space to make it viable as well. -a
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:06 -0800 Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course I understand this, but I also understand that if one can get away with RFC1918 addresses on a non-Internet-connected network, it's not a bad idea to do so in and of itself; quite the opposite, in fact, as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road. The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address 192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices using that address, you really start to see the value in having world wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Mark Smith wrote: The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address 192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices using that address, you really start to see the value in having world wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing. That's what I meant by the 'as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road' part. Having encountered problems with overlapping address space many times in the past, I'm quite aware of the pain, thanks. ; RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all understand that) today by many network operators for a reason. It is up to the architects and operators of networks to determine whether or not they should make use of globally-unique addresses or RFC1918 addresses on a case-by-case basis; making use of RFC1918 addressing is not an inherently stupid course of action, its appropriateness in any given situation is entirely subjective. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
I hear you on the double, triple nat nightmare, I'm there myself. I'm working on rolling out VRFs to solve that problem, still testing. The nat complexities and bugs (nat translations losing their mind and killing connectivity for important apps) are just too much for some of our customers, users, etc to deal with. Some days it kills me that v6 is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since that is what is most implemented, not in the colo world but what the users have. I suggested they offer a service that somehow translates (heh, shifting the pain to them) v4 to v6 for their customers to move it along. Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Mark Smith wrote: The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address 192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices using that address, you really start to see the value in having world wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing. That's what I meant by the 'as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road' part. Having encountered problems with overlapping address space many times in the past, I'm quite aware of the pain, thanks. ; RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all understand that) today by many network operators for a reason. It is up to the architects and operators of networks to determine whether or not they should make use of globally-unique addresses or RFC1918 addresses on a case-by-case basis; making use of RFC1918 addressing is not an inherently stupid course of action, its appropriateness in any given situation is entirely subjective. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
RE: Google wants to be your Internet
The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address 192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices using that address, you really start to see the value in having world wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing. A lot of people who implemented RFC 1918 addressing in the past didn't actually read RFC 1918. They just heard the mantra of address conservation and learned that RFC 1918 defined something called private addresses. Then, without reading the RFC, they made assumptions in interpreting the meaning of private. Now, many of those people or their successors have been bit hard by problems created by using RFC 1918 addresses in networks which are not really private at all, i.e. wholly unconnected from other IP networks. Those people now see the benefits of using truly globally unique registered addresses. The whole address conservation mantra has turned out to be a lot of smoke and mirrors anyway. The dotcom collapse followed by the telecom collapse shows that it was a sham argument based on the ridiculous theory that exponential growth of the network was really sustainable. Now we live in a time where there is no shortage of IP addresses. Even IPv4 addresses are not guaranteed to ever run out as IPv6 begins to be used for some of the drivers of network growth. IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides. --Michael Dillon
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 24, 2007, at 5:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole address conservation mantra has turned out to be a lot of smoke and mirrors anyway. At the time, yes, this particular issue was overhyped, just as the routing-table-expansion issue was underhyped. As we move to an 'Internet of Things', however, it will become manifestl With regards to the perceived advantages and disadvantages of IPv6 as it is currently defined, there is wide range of opinion on the subject. For many, the 'still-need-NAT-under-IPv6 vs. IPv6- eliminates-the-need-for-NAT' debate is of minor importance compared to more fundamental questions. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
RE: Google wants to be your Internet
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason LeBlanc Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:40 AM To: Roland Dobbins Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet I hear you on the double, triple nat nightmare, I'm there myself. I'm working on rolling out VRFs to solve that problem, still testing. The nat complexities and bugs (nat translations losing their mind and killing connectivity for important apps) are just too much for some of our customers, users, etc to deal with. Some days it kills me that v6 is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since that is what is most implemented, not in the colo world but what the users have. I suggested they offer a service that somehow translates (heh, shifting the pain to them) v4 to v6 for their customers to move it along. Windows XP SP2 has IPv6. It isn't enabled by default, but it's not difficult to do. Apparently Vista does do IPv6 by default out of the box, but I don't have a Vista system to play with yet to confirm this. Jamie Bowden -- It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold Hunter S Tolkien Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur Iain Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 24-Jan-2007, at 10:01, Jamie Bowden wrote: Some days it kills me that v6 is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since that is what is most implemented, not in the colo world but what the users have. Windows XP SP2 has IPv6. It isn't enabled by default, but it's not difficult to do. Apparently Vista does do IPv6 by default out of the box, but I don't have a Vista system to play with yet to confirm this. I might argue that, legacy systems and hardware aside, the main reason that v6 might be considered non-viable these days is the lack of customers willing to pay for it. I don't think the viability of v6 has been blocking on operating systems or router hardware for quite some time, now. It's still a problem for many operational support systems, but arguably that would change rapidly if there was some prospect of revenue. Joe
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities. - Dan On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shankland) [Mon 22 Jan 2007, 18:21 CET]: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. It's not nonsense. Those elements need to be unique. RFC1918 isn't unique enough (think what happens during a corporate merger). -- Niels.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 1/22/07, Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities. - Dan On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use GPRS in the dead of night?). -brandon
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Dan, there's one very big assumption in your statement: cost of BPL for metering is economical or workable in the regulatory model. Forget value added services for a moment, the cost often cannot be burdened on the rate payer (regulatory constraint). So, funding this sort of effort is non-trivial. Best regards, Christian -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:52:45 To:Niels Bakker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities. - Dan On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED]: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shankland) [Mon 22 Jan 2007, 18:21 CET]: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. It's not nonsense. Those elements need to be unique. RFC1918 isn't unique enough (think what happens during a corporate merger). -- Niels.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use GPRS in the dead of night?). -brandon Enron did this with SkyTel paging in California. Or rather they wanted to do it, couldn't hack it, so used the bulk-bought pager airtime as a perk.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said: Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use GPRS in the dead of night?). Especially in rural areas (where physically reading meters sucks the most due to long inter-house distances), you have no guarantee of good cellular coverage. The electric company *can* however assume they have copper connectivity to the meter by definition pgpmfWZDDCHFP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Daniel Golding wrote: One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities. Why is IP required, and even if you used IP for transport why must the meter identification be based on an IP address? If meters only report information, they don't need a unique transport address and could put the meter identifier in the application data. Even if the intent is to include additional controls, e.g. cycle air conditioners during peak periods, you still don't need to use IP or unique IP transport addresses. Just because you have the hammer called IP, doesn't mean you must use it on everything.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Especially in rural areas (where physically reading meters sucks the most due to long inter-house distances), you have no guarantee of good cellular coverage. The electric company *can* however assume they have copper connectivity to the meter by definition Doesn't have to be copper- it could be aluminum :) -Don
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Why is IP required, and even if you used IP for transport why must the meter identification be based on an IP address? If meters only report information, they don't need a unique transport address and could put the meter identifier in the application data. Even if the intent is to include additional controls, e.g. cycle air conditioners during peak periods, you still don't need to use IP or unique IP transport addresses. Just because you have the hammer called IP, doesn't mean you must use it on everything. Exactly. A meter should be able to connect over an available transport method, and be identifiable via a serial number, not an IP. It may need to grab a DHCP address of some sort (or whatever the moniker is for the transport available), but in the end it's unique serial number should be used to identify itself.
RE: Google wants to be your Internet
Virginia Power replaced our meter over the summer with a new one that has wireless on it. The meter reader just drives a truck past the houses and grabs the data without him/her ever leaving the truck. I have no idea what protocol they're using, or if it's even remotely secure. Jamie Bowden -- It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold Hunter S Tolkien Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur Iain Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:44 AM To: Brandon Galbraith Cc: Daniel Golding; Niels Bakker; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said: Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use GPRS in the dead of night?). Especially in rural areas (where physically reading meters sucks the most due to long inter-house distances), you have no guarantee of good cellular coverage. The electric company *can* however assume they have copper connectivity to the meter by definition
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On (2007-01-23 12:25 -0500), Jamie Bowden wrote: Virginia Power replaced our meter over the summer with a new one that has wireless on it. The meter reader just drives a truck past the houses and grabs the data without him/her ever leaving the truck. I have no idea what protocol they're using, or if it's even remotely secure. We have it here too, few times there has been articles in the newspaper about car alarms going off along the street, when the meters are read :). -- ++ytti
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Jim Shankland wrote: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. globally unique addresses I have an electic company, it's got 2500 partners, all with the same 'internal ip addressing plan' (192.168.1.0/24) we need to communicate, is NAT on both sides really efficient?
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
[ 2-in-1, before I hit the 'too many flames posted' threshold ;) ] Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: But which address space do you put in the network behind the VPN? RFC1918!? Oh, already using that on the DSL link to where you are VPN'ing in from. oopsy ;) Actually, NBD, because you can handle that with a VPN client which does a virtual adaptor-type of deal and overlapping address space doesn't matter, because once you're in the tunnel, you're not sending/receiving outside of the tunnel. Port-forwarding and NAT (ugly, but people do it) can apply, too. How do you handle 192.168.1.1 talking to 192.168.1.1, oh I do mean a different one. Or do you double-reverse-ultra-NAT the packets !? :) One doesn't want to solve problems that way. That is only seen as creating problems. Good for a consultants wallet, but not good for the companies using it and neither good for the programmer who had to work around it in all his applications. That is the case for globally unique addresses and the reason why banks that use RFC1918 don't like it when they need to merge etc etc etc... Sure, and then you get into double-NATting and who redistributes what routes into who's IGP and all that kind of jazz (it's a big problem on extranet-type connections, too). To be clear, all I was saying is that the subsidiary point that there are things which don't belong on the global Internet is a valid one One can perfectly request address space from any of the RIR's and never ever announce or connect it to the internet. One can even give that as a reason I require globally unique address space and you will receive it from the RIR in question. One doesn't need to use globally unique address space in the Internet, it is perfectly valid to use it as a disconnected means. Simple example which nicely works: 9.0.0.0/8 That network is definitely used, but not to be found on the Internet. Also, how many military and bank networks are announced on the Internet? If they are announced, they most likely are nicely firewalled away or actually disconnected in all means possible from the Internet and just used as a nice virus trap, as those silly virusses do scan them :) and entirely separate from any discussions of universal uniqueness in terms of address-space, as there are (ugly, non-scalable, brittle, but available) ways to work around such problems, in many cases. You actually mean that you love to create all kinds of weird solutions to solve a problem that could have easily be avoided in the first place!? I don't think I would like to have your job doing those dirty things. With IPv6 and ULA's especially those mistakes fortunately won't happen that quickly any more. Saves you, me, and a load of other people a lot of headaches. Maybe you won't be able to consult for them any more and make quite some money off them, well that is too bad. And now for some asbestos action: short summary: a) use global addresses for everything, b) use proper acl's), c) toys exist that some people clearly don't know about yet ;) No further technical content below, except for a reply to a flame. (But don't miss out on the pdf mentioned for the toys ;) Jim Shankland wrote: In response to my saying: I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] responds, concisely: It doesn't, and it shouldn't. That does *not* mean it should not have a globally unique ( != globally routable) IP address. and Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] presents several hypothetical scenarios. Are you trying to say that I make things up? Neat, lets counter that: http://www.sixxs.net/presentations/SwiNOG11-DeployingIPv6.pdf (yes, I know large slideset, unfortunately alexandria.paf.se where the pix came from is not available anymore and I can't find another source) Slides 50-57 show some nice toys which you can get in the Asian region already. This is thus far from hypothetical. Note the IPv6 address on that hydro controller's LCD, it can be used to water your plants. Yes, indeed, when that show was happening, it was globally addressable, just like the camera and all the other toys there. And yes, I gave the plant water using telnet :) That you don't have it, That you didn't see it yet, doesn't mean it does not exist. Note that the original goal was for electrical companies to monitor electrical meters. Jeroen brings up backyard mini-nuke plants, seeing how much the power plug in the garden is being used, etc. These may all be desirable goals, but they represent considerable mission creep from the originally stated goal. What is your point with writing this section? Trying to explain that it does not conform to your exact wishes? Or do you just want to type my name a couple of times to practice it? I know it is as difficult to pronounce as to type it ;) Dunno
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote: globally unique addresses I have an electic company, it's got 2500 partners, all with the same 'internal ip addressing plan' (192.168.1.0/24) we need to communicate, is NAT on both sides really efficient? What do you do when the electric companies split up again, renumber the meters into different network blocks? Satellite set-top boxes don't need to be assigned unique phone numbers to report pay-per-view events back to Dish/DirecTV. They just wake up every few weeks, use the transport identifier already available on the customer's phone line and sends the data, with an embedded identifier independent from the network transport. If the satellite STB ever knew its telephone number, it is probably out-of-date after a few area code changes. The same thing happens with burgerler alarm reporting, and lots of other things. I think network engineers are too quick to use network identifiers for applications. Electric meters, set-top boxes, alarm systems, ice-boxes, and whatever else you want to connect to the network don't need to have the same permanent identifier for the application and the transport. Most of the time they don't need a permanent transport identifier.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Our REA has been reading the meter via the copper running to our house for several years now. Took them less than 2 years to realize a savings. (And since it's a co-op, that means the price goes down :) ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said: Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use GPRS in the dead of night?). Especially in rural areas (where physically reading meters sucks the most due to long inter-house distances), you have no guarantee of good cellular coverage. The electric company *can* however assume they have copper connectivity to the meter by definition
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Hello; On Jan 22, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities. If they control the network, why is doing this with IPv6 out of the question ? It seems like a good fit to me. Regards Marshall - Dan On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shankland) [Mon 22 Jan 2007, 18:21 CET]: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. It's not nonsense. Those elements need to be unique. RFC1918 isn't unique enough (think what happens during a corporate merger). -- Niels.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote: I have an electic company, it's got 2500 partners, all with the same 'internal ip addressing plan' (192.168.1.0/24) we need to communicate, is NAT on both sides really efficient? I've seen plenty of company setups that double/triple-NAT due to administrative/ security boundaries. The majority of them seem to be government organisations too. :) Adrian
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: a) use global addresses for everything, Everything which needs to be accessed globally, sure. But I don't see this as a hard and fast requirement, it's up to the user based upon his projected use. b) use proper acl's), Of course. c) toys exist that some people clearly don't know about yet ;) Indeed. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 23, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: The majority of them seem to be government organisations too. :) We also see this with extranet/supply-chain-type connectivity between large companies who have overlapping address space, and I'm afraid it's only going to become more common as more of these types of relationships are established. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Travis H. wrote: On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:41:19AM -0800, Lucy Lynch wrote: sensor nets anyone? The bridge-monitoring stuff sounds a lot like SCADA. //drift IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US. Presumably this would be via some slow signalling protocol over the power lines themselves (slow so that you don't trash the entire spectrum by signalling in the range where power lines are good antennas - i.e. 30MHz or so). The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. I've heard tha's pretty close to how IPv6 ends up being used as far as current public production installation use go (not counting those done for research, etc). For example apparently some railroad in europe setup ipv6 for use in the rail sensors. Then we also recently heard of large ISP using ipv6 for creating management subnet for all their network equipment, etc. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CDN ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
Hi Adrian, I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache that could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff (bittorrent especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost upwards of USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment. Here in central europe we had caching friendly environment from 1997 till 2001 due of transit lines pricing. Few yaers ago prices for upstream connectivity fell and from this time there is no interest for caching. I've discussed this with several nationwide ISPs in .cz and found these reasons: a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system for configuration) b) possible conflict with content owners c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth d) they want to have their network fully transparent I don't want to judge these answers, just FYI. It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL isn't content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to upstreams and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of view, but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right at the point where your customers connect in. Same here. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing amount of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd love to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world and what we could to do make it easier for y'all.) Please see points (a)-(d). I think there can be also point (e). Some telcos want to play triple-play game (Internet, telephony and IPTV). They want to move their users back from the Internet to relativelly safe revenue area (television channel distribution via IPTV). Regards Michal Krsek
Re: CDN ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote: For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit though... a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system for configuration) b) possible conflict with content owners c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth d) they want to have their network fully transparent Only a, b apply. d I am not sure I understand.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. Jim Shankland
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shankland) [Mon 22 Jan 2007, 18:21 CET]: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. It's not nonsense. Those elements need to be unique. RFC1918 isn't unique enough (think what happens during a corporate merger). -- Niels.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Jim Shankland wrote: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. Ah, cool, an advocate of NAT. Or didn't you want to say that one can just make their own IPv4 address space and use that ? Remember that the machines checking the billing most likely has a global address and RFC1918 ain't nice. Barring getting address space, IPv4 and IPv6 will both do fine for it. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. 1) You are on vacation and want to check if you actually turned on that mini-nuke plant in your garden, so that you will retain some cash on your credit card so that you can still come home. 2) You are still on vacation and want to check if your kids are not over abusing electrical power instead of being 'green' for the environment. 3) You are already on the northpole, Lagos was boring after all, and you want to check about that email you received from the electrical company, to see where the power usage was actually so high. You notice that the power plug in the garden is being used a lot, look at the webcam there and notice that your neighbor is using your power. Oh, only one case eh? :) But I guess it is nonsense. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Jim Shankland wrote: Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. Which is nonsense. More gently, it's only true if you not only want to use IP to monitor electrical meters, but want the use the (global) Internet to monitor electrical meters. I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. Perhaps your electrical company has more than 16.7 million electrical meters it needs to address.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: But I guess it is nonsense. This is what ssh tunnels and/or VPN are for, IMHO. It's perfectly legitimate to construct private networks (DCN/OOB nets, anyone? How about that IV flow-control monitor which determines how much antibiotics you're getting per hour after your open-heart surgery?) for purposes which aren't suited to direct connectivity to/from anyone on the global Internet. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Roland Dobbins wrote: This is what ssh tunnels and/or VPN are for, IMHO. It's perfectly legitimate to construct private networks (DCN/OOB nets, anyone? How about that IV flow-control monitor which determines how much antibiotics you're getting per hour after your open-heart surgery?) for purposes which aren't suited to direct connectivity to/from anyone on the global Internet. --- Can this thread now be merged with the Cacti thread and made into Using Cacti for Monitoring your Heart and IV's While Using Your Google Toolbar? -- J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x1383A743 sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net The happiness of society is the end of government. John Adams smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: But I guess it is nonsense. This is what ssh tunnels and/or VPN are for, IMHO [..] Of course, for protecting them you should use that and firewalls and other security measures that one deems neccesary. But which address space do you put in the network behind the VPN? RFC1918!? Oh, already using that on the DSL link to where you are VPN'ing in from. oopsy ;) That is the case for globally unique addresses and the reason why banks that use RFC1918 don't like it when they need to merge etc etc etc... Fortunately, for IPv6 we have ULA's (fc00::/7), that solves that problem. /me donates coffee around. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: But which address space do you put in the network behind the VPN? RFC1918!? Oh, already using that on the DSL link to where you are VPN'ing in from. oopsy ;) Actually, NBD, because you can handle that with a VPN client which does a virtual adaptor-type of deal and overlapping address space doesn't matter, because once you're in the tunnel, you're not sending/ receiving outside of the tunnel. Port-forwarding and NAT (ugly, but people do it) can apply, too. That is the case for globally unique addresses and the reason why banks that use RFC1918 don't like it when they need to merge etc etc etc... Sure, and then you get into double-NATting and who redistributes what routes into who's IGP and all that kind of jazz (it's a big problem on extranet-type connections, too). To be clear, all I was saying is that the subsidiary point that there are things which don't belong on the global Internet is a valid one, and entirely separate from any discussions of universal uniqueness in terms of address-space, as there are (ugly, non-scalable, brittle, but available) ways to work around such problems, in many cases. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
In response to my saying: I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos. Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] responds, concisely: It doesn't, and it shouldn't. That does *not* mean it should not have a globally unique ( != globally routable) IP address. and Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] presents several hypothetical scenarios. Note that the original goal was for electrical companies to monitor electrical meters. Jeroen brings up backyard mini-nuke plants, seeing how much the power plug in the garden is being used, etc. These may all be desirable goals, but they represent considerable mission creep from the originally stated goal. None of Jeroen's applications requires end-to-end, packet-level access to the individual devices in Jeroen's future (I assume) home. You can certainly argue that packet-level connectivity is better, easier to engineer, scales better, etc., etc.; but it is not *required*. In fact, there are sound engineering arguments against packet-level access: since we've dragged in the backyard nuke plant, consider what happens when everybody has a backyard mini-nuke, with control software written by Linksys, and it turns out that sending it a certain kind of malformed packet can cause it to melt down No matter. Reasonable people can disagree on the question of whether every networkable device benefits from being globally, uniquely addressable. The burden on the proponents is higher than that: there are *costs* associated with such an architecture, and the proponents of globally unique addressing need to show not only that it has benefits, but that the benefits exceed the costs. Coming full circle, the original assertion was that IPv6 was required in order for electric companies to use IP to monitor US electric meters. That assertion is false, and no amount of hand-waving about backyard nuke plants will make it true. The history of IPv6 has been that it keeps receding into the future as people's use of IPv4 adapts enough to make the current benefit of switching to IPv6 smaller than the cost to do so. Perhaps after a decade or so, we're nearing the end of that road. Or perhaps, as F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote about IPv6, it is: the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further And one fine morning - We'll see. Jim Shankland
Re: CDN ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:15:44 -0600 (CST) Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote: For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit though... a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system for configuration) b) possible conflict with content owners c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth d) they want to have their network fully transparent Only a, b apply. d I am not sure I understand. I think (d) is all network testing tools showing a perfect path, which sould isolate the fault to the remote web server itself, yet the website not working because the translucent proxy has a fault. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 20, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Marshall wrote: Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule). With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I would predict something closer to 10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not that unrealistic. I would predict that these sorts of distributions will continue as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. Regards Marshall That's until the spambots inherit the world, right? I tend to take the long view. sensor nets anyone? research http://research.cens.ucla.edu/portal/page?_pageid=59,43783_dad=portal_schema=PORTAL business http://www.campbellsci.com/bridge-monitoring investment http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=184400339 global alerts? disaster management? physical world traffic engineering?
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Lucy Lynch wrote: sensor nets anyone? On that subject, the current IP protocols are quite bad on delivering asynchronous notifications to large audiences. Is anyone aware of developments or research toward making this work better? (overlays, multicast, etc.) Pete research http://research.cens.ucla.edu/portal/page?_pageid=59,43783_dad=portal_schema=PORTAL business http://www.campbellsci.com/bridge-monitoring investment http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=184400339 global alerts? disaster management? physical world traffic engineering?
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:41:19AM -0800, Lucy Lynch wrote: sensor nets anyone? The bridge-monitoring stuff sounds a lot like SCADA. //drift IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical meters throughout the US. Presumably this would be via some slow signalling protocol over the power lines themselves (slow so that you don't trash the entire spectrum by signalling in the range where power lines are good antennas - i.e. 30MHz or so). The response was yeah, well, maybe with IPv6. -- ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' -- Albert Einstein -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ pgpMI1sNxfHtS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. -- Rodrick R. Brown
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 20, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Rodrick Brown wrote: On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. I'm not sure why you find that disturbing. I can think of two reasons, and, they depend almost entirely on your perspective: If you are disturbed because you know that these users are early adopters and that eventually, a much wider audience will adopt this technology driving a need for much more bandwidth than is available today, then, the solution is obvious. As in the past, bandwidth will have to increase to meet increased demand. If you are disturbed by the inequity of it, then, little can be done. There will always be classes of consumers who use more than other classes of consumers of any resource. Frankly, looking from my corner of the internet, I don't think that statistic is entirely accurate. From my perspective, SPAM uses more bandwidth than BitTorrent. OTOH, another thing to consider is that if all those video downloads being handled by BitTorrent were migrated to HTTP connections instead the required amount of bandwidth would be substantially higher. Owen
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Rodrick Brown wrote: On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. Moreover, those of you who were at NANOG in June will remember some of the numbers Colin gave about Youtube using 20gbps outbound. That number was still early in the exponential growth phase the site is (*still*) having. The 20gbps number would likely seem laughable now. -david
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
The Internet: the world's only industry that complains that people want its product. On 1/20/07, David Ulevitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rodrick Brown wrote: On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. Moreover, those of you who were at NANOG in June will remember some of the numbers Colin gave about Youtube using 20gbps outbound. That number was still early in the exponential growth phase the site is (*still*) having. The 20gbps number would likely seem laughable now. -david
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. the heavy hitters are long known. get over it. i won't bother to cite cho et al. and similar actual measurement studies, as doing so seems not to cause people to read them, only to say they already did or say how unlike japan north america is. the phenomonon is part protocol and part social. the question to me is whether isps and end user borders (universities, large enterprises, ...) will learn to embrace this as opposed to fighting it; i.e. find a business model that embraces delivering what the customer wants as opposed to winging and warring against it. if we do, then the authors of the 2p2 protocols will feel safe in improving their customers' experience by taking advantage of localization and proximity, as opposed to focusing on subverting perceived fierce opposition by isps and end user border fascists. and then, guess what; the traffic will distribute more reasonably and not all sum up on the longer glass. randy randy
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
* Rodrick Brown: Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. s/BitTtorrent/porn, and we've been there all along. I think the real issue here is that Google's video traffic does *not* clog the network, but would be distributed through private networks (sometimes Google's own, or through another company's CDN) and injected into the Internet very close to the consumer. No one is able to charge for that traffic because if they did, Google would simply inject it someplace else. At best your, one of your peerings would go out of balance, or at worst, *you* would have to pay for Google's traffic.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Alexander Harrowell wrote: The Internet: the world's only industry that complains that people want its product. The quote sounds good, but nobody in this thread is complaining. There have always been top-talkers on networks and there always will be. The current top-talkers are the joe and jane users of tomorrow. That is what is important. BitTorrent-like technology might start showing up in your media center, your access point, etc. The Venice Project (Joost) and a number of other new startups are also built around this model of distribution. Maybe a more symmetric load on the network (at least on the edge) will improve economic models or maybe we'll see eyeball networks start to peer with each other as they start sourcing more and more of the bits. Maybe that's already happening. -david On 1/20/07, *David Ulevitch* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rodrick Brown wrote: On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. Moreover, those of you who were at NANOG in June will remember some of the numbers Colin gave about Youtube using 20gbps outbound. That number was still early in the exponential growth phase the site is (*still*) having. The 20gbps number would likely seem laughable now. -david
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Hello; On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote: On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in the entire article and its a bit disturbing. Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently consuming more than 50 percent of all bandwidth. Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule). With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I would predict something closer to 10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not that unrealistic. I would predict that these sorts of distributions will continue as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. Regards Marshall -- Rodrick R. Brown
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Marshall wrote: Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule). With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I would predict something closer to 10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not that unrealistic. I would predict that these sorts of distributions will continue as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. Regards Marshall That's until the spambots inherit the world, right?
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 10:12 -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote: Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html Aren't there some Telco laws wrt cross-state, but still interlata, calls not being able to be charged as interstate? Perhaps Google wants to avoid any future federal/state regulations by providing in-state (i.e. local) access. Additionally, it makes it easier to do state and local govt business when the data is in the same state (it's not out-sourcing if it's just nextdoor...). And then there is the lobbying issue, what better way to lobby multiple states than do do significant business their in? Or perhaps I'm just daydreaming too much today ;-) -Jim P. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Marshall wrote: Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule). With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I would predict something closer to 10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not that unrealistic. I would predict that these sorts of distributions will continue as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. Regards Marshall That's until the spambots inherit the world, right? That is if you see a distinction, metaphorical or physical, between spambots and real users.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote: the heavy hitters are long known. get over it. i won't bother to cite cho et al. and similar actual measurement studies, as doing so seems not to cause people to read them, only to say they already did or say how unlike japan north america is. the phenomonon is part protocol and part social. the question to me is whether isps and end user borders (universities, large enterprises, ...) will learn to embrace this as opposed to fighting it; i.e. find a business model that embraces delivering what the customer wants as opposed to winging and warring against it. if we do, then the authors of the 2p2 protocols will feel safe in improving their customers' experience by taking advantage of localization and proximity, as opposed to focusing on subverting perceived fierce opposition by isps and end user border fascists. and then, guess what; the traffic will distribute more reasonably and not all sum up on the longer glass. randy It has been a long time since I bowed before Mr. Bush's wisdom, but indeed, I bow now in a very humble fashion. Thing is though, it is quivalent to one or all of the following: -. EFF-like thinking (moral high-ground or impractical at times, yet correct and to live by). -. (very) Forward thinking (yet not possible for people to get behind - by people I mean those who do this daily), likely to encounter much resistence until it becomes mainstream a few years down the road. -. Not connected with what can currently happen to affect change, but rather how things really are which people can not yet accept. As Randy is obviously not much affected when people disagree with him, nor should he, I am sure he will preach this until it becomes real. With that in mind, if many of us believe this is a philosophical as well as a technological truth -- what can be done today to affect this change? Some examples may be: -. Working with network gear vendors to create better equipment built to handle this and lighten the load. -. Working on establishing new standards and topologies to enable both vendors and providers to adopt them. -. Presenting case studies after putting our money where our mouth is, and showing how we made it work in a live network. Staying in the philosophical realm is more than respectable, but waiting for FUSSP-like wide-addoption or for sheep to fly is not going to change the world, much. For now, the P2P folks who are not in most cases eveel Internet Pirates are mostly allied, whether in name or in practice with illegal activities. The technology isn't illegal and can be quite good for all of us to save quite a bit of bandwidth rather than waste it (quite a bit of redudndancy there!). So, instead of fighting it and seeing it left in the hands of the pirates and the privacy folks trying to bypass the Firewall of [insert evil regime here], why not utilize it? How can service providers make use of all this redudndancy among their top talkers and remove the privacy advocates and warez freaks from the picture, leaving that front with less technology and legitimacy while helping themselves? This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port blocking and QoS. Gadi.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:55:49 -0600 (CST), Gadi Evron wrote: On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote: the question to me is whether isps and end user borders (universities, large enterprises, ...) will learn to embrace this as opposed to fighting it; i.e. find a business model that embraces delivering what the customer wants as opposed to winging and warring against it. interesting.. i was about to say.. I am involved in London, in building an ISP that encourages users of p2p with respect from major and independent record labels. it makes sense that the film industry will (and is?) moving towards some kind of acceptance as well. Thing is though, it is quivalent to one or all of the following: -. EFF-like thinking (moral high-ground or impractical at times, yet correct and to live by). -. (very) Forward thinking (yet not possible for people to get behind - by people I mean those who do this daily), likely to encounter much resistence until it becomes mainstream a few years down the road. -. Not connected with what can currently happen to affect change, but rather how things really are which people can not yet accept. well, a little dash of all thinking makes for a healthy environment doesn't it? This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port blocking and QoS. This is what I am interested/scared by. C. -- hail eris http://rubberduck.com/
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote: This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port blocking and QoS. This is what I am interested/scared by. Its not that hard a problem to get on top of. Caching, unfortunately, continues to be viewed as anaethma by ISP network operators in the US. Strangely enough the caching technologies aren't a problem with the content -delivery- people. I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache that could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff (bittorrent especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost upwards of USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment. It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL isn't content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to upstreams and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of view, but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right at the point where your customers connect in. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing amount of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd love to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world and what we could to do make it easier for y'all.) Adrian
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 20, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Marshall wrote: Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule). With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I would predict something closer to 10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not that unrealistic. I would predict that these sorts of distributions will continue as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. Regards Marshall That's until the spambots inherit the world, right? I tend to take the long view.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 05:55:49PM -0600, Gadi Evron wrote: Some examples may be: -. Working on establishing new standards and topologies to enable both vendors and providers to adopt them. Keep this point in mind while reading my below comment. For now, the P2P folks who are not in most cases eveel Internet Pirates are mostly allied, whether in name or in practice with illegal activities. The technology isn't illegal and can be quite good for all of us to save quite a bit of bandwidth rather than waste it (quite a bit of redudndancy there!). A paper put together by the authors of a download-only free riding BitTorrent client, called BitThief. The paper is worth reading: http://dcg.ethz.ch/publications/hotnets06.pdf http://dcg.ethz.ch/projects/bitthief/ (client is here) The part that saddens me the most about this project isn't the complete disregard for the give back what you take moral (though that part does sadden me personally) , but what this is going to do to the protocol and the clients. Chances are that other torrent client authors are going to see the project as major defiance and start implementing things like filtering what client can connect to who based on the client name/ID string (ex. uTorrent, Azureus, MainLine), which as we all know, is going to last maybe 3 weeks. This in turn will solicit the BitThief authors implementing a feature that allows the client to either spoof its client name or use randomly- generated ones. Rinse lather repeat, until everyone is fighting rather than cooperating. Will the BT protocol be reformed to address this? 50/50 chance. So, instead of fighting it and seeing it left in the hands of the pirates and the privacy folks trying to bypass the Firewall of [insert evil regime here], why not utilize it? I think Adrian Chadd's mail addresses this indirectly: it's not being utilised because of the bandwidth requirements. ISPs probably don't have an interest in BT caching because of 1) cost of ownership, 2) legal concerns (if an ISP cached a publicly distributed copy of some pirated software, who's then responsible?), and most of all, 3) it's easier to buy a content-sniffing device that rate-limits, or just start hard-limiting users who use too much bandwidth (a phrase ISPs use as justification for shutting off customers' connections, but never provide numbers of just what's too much). The result of these items already been shown: BT encryption. I personally know of 3 individuals who have their client to use en- cryption only (disabling non-encrypted connection support). For security? Nope -- solely because their ISP uses a rate limiting device. Bram Cohen's official statement is that using encryption to get around this is silly because not many ISPs are implementing such devices (maybe not *right now*, Bram, but in the next year or two, they likely will): http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/29886.html ISPs will go with implementing the above device *before* implementing something like a BT caching box. Adrian probably knows this too, and chances are it's probably because of the 3 above items I listed. So my question is this: how exactly do we (as administrators of systems or networks) get companies, managers, and even other administrators, to think differently about solving this? -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networkinghttp://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: snip ISPs probably don't have an interest in BT caching because of 1) cost of ownership, 2) legal concerns (if an ISP cached a publicly distributed copy of some pirated software, who's then responsible?), They cache the web, which has the same chance of being illegal content. snip The result of these items already been shown: BT encryption. I personally know of 3 individuals who have their client to use en- cryption only (disabling non-encrypted connection support). For security? Nope -- solely because their ISP uses a rate limiting device. Yep. Users will find a way to maintain functionality. Bram Cohen's official statement is that using encryption to get around this is silly because not many ISPs are implementing such devices (maybe not *right now*, Bram, but in the next year or two, they likely will): http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/29886.html I don't know of many user ISPs which don't implement them, you kidding?:) snip So my question is this: how exactly do we (as administrators of systems or networks) get companies, managers, and even other administrators, to think differently about solving this? -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networkinghttp://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:33:26 +0800 Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote: This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port blocking and QoS. This is what I am interested/scared by. Its not that hard a problem to get on top of. Caching, unfortunately, continues to be viewed as anaethma by ISP network operators in the US. Strangely enough the caching technologies aren't a problem with the content -delivery- people. I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache that could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff (bittorrent especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost upwards of USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment. I think it is probably because to build caching infrastructure that is high performance and has enough high availability to make a difference is either non-trivial or non-cheap. If it comes down to introducing something new (new software / hardware, new concepts, new complexity, new support skills, another thing that can break etc.) verses just growing something you already have, already manage and have since day one as an ISP - additional routers and/or higher capacity links - then growing the network wins when the $ amount is the same because it is simpler and easier. It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL isn't content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to upstreams and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of view, but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right at the point where your customers connect in. I think if even pure networking people (i.e. those that just focus on shifting IP packets around) are accepting of that situation, when they also believe in keeping traffic local, indicates that it is probably more of an economic rather than a technical reason why that is still happening. Inter-ISP peering at the exchange (C.O) would be the ideal, however it seems that there isn't enough inter-customer (per-ISP or between ISP) bandwidth consumption at each exchange to justify the additional financial and complexity costs to do it. Inter-customer traffic forwarding is usually happening at the next level up in the hierarchy - at the regional / city level, which is probably at this time the most economic level to do it. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing amount of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd love to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world and what we could to do make it easier for y'all.) Maybe that really means your customers (i.e. people who most benefit from your software) are really the content distributors not ISPs anymore. While the distinction might seem somewhat minor, I think ISPs generally tend to have more of a view point of where is this traffic wanting or probably going to go, and how to do we build infrastructure to get it there, and less of a what is this traffic view. In other words, ISPs tend to be more focused on trying to optimise for all types of traffic rather than one or a select few particular types, because what the customer does with the bandwidth they purchase is up to the customer themselves. If you spend time optimising for one type of traffic you're either neglecting or negatively impacting another type. Spending time on general optimisations that benefit all types of traffic is usually the better way to spend time. I think one of the reasons for ISP interest in the p2p problem could be because it is reducing the normal benefit-to-cost ratio of general traffic optimsation. Restoring the regular benefit-to-cost ratio of general traffic optimsation is probably the fundamental goal of solving the p2p problem. My suggestion to you as a squid developer would be focus on caching, or more generally, localising of P2P traffic. It doesn't seem that the P2P application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care because it doesn't directly impact them, or maybe because they don't know how to. If squid could provide a traffic localising solution which is just another traffic sink or source (e.g. a server) to an ISP, rather than something that requires enabling knobs on the network infrastructure for special handling or requires special traffic engineering for it to work, I'd think you'd get quite a bit of interest. Just my 2c. Regards, Mark. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Randy Bush wrote: the question to me is whether isps and end user borders (universities, large enterprises, ...) will learn to embrace this as opposed to fighting it; i.e. find a business model that embraces delivering what the customer wants as opposed to winging and warring against it. I believe that it will end up becoming the norm, as it's a form of cost-shifting from content providers to NSPs and end-users - but for it to really take off, the tension between content-providers and their customers (i.e., crippling DRM) needs to be resolved. There have been some experiments in U.S. universities over the last couple of years in which private music-sharing services have been run by the universities themselves, and the students pay a fee for access to said music. I haven't seen any studies which provide a clue as to whether or not these experiments have been successful (for some value of 'successful'); my suspicion is that crippling DRM combined with a lack of variety may have been 'features' of these systems, which is not a good test. OTOH, emusic.com seem to be going great guns with non-DRMed .mp3s and a subscription model; perhaps (an official) P2P distribution might be a logical next step for a service of this type. I think it would be a very interesting experiment. Won't really happen as long as they stick to a business model which is over a hundred years old. I would strongly suggest people with interest in this area watch Lawrence Lessig's lecture from CCC: http://dewy.fem.tu-ilmenau.de/CCC/23C3/video/23C3-1760-en-on_free.m4v But I would like to stay on-track and discuss how we can help ISPs change from their end, considering both operational and business needs. Do you believe making such a case study public will help? Do you believe it is the ISP itself which should become the content provider rather than a bandwidth service? Gadi.
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:38:06 -0600 (CST) Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Marshall wrote: Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule). With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I would predict something closer to 10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not that unrealistic. I would predict that these sorts of distributions will continue as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. Regards Marshall That's until the spambots inherit the world, right? That is if you see a distinction, metaphorical or physical, between spambots and real users. On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog (Peter Steiner, The New Yorker) Woof woof, Mark. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: as long as humans are the primary consumers of bandwidth. This is an interesting phrase. Did you mean it T-I-C, or are you speculating that M2M (machine-to-machine) communications will at some point rival/overtake bandwidth consumption which is interactively triggered by human actions? Right now TiVo will record television programs it thinks you might like; what effect will this type of technology have on IPTV, more mature P2P systems, etc.? It would be very interesting to try and determine how much automated bandwdith consumption is taking place now and try to extrapolate some trends; a good topic for a PhD dissertation, IMHO. ; --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 20, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote: It doesn't seem that the P2P application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care because it doesn't directly impact them, or maybe because they don't know how to. If squid could provide a traffic localising solution which is just another traffic sink or source (e.g. a server) to an ISP, rather than something that requires enabling knobs on the network infrastructure for special handling or requires special traffic engineering for it to work, I'd think you'd get quite a bit of interest. I think there's interest from the consumer level, already: http://torrentfreak.com/review-the-wireless-BitTorrent-router/ It's early days, but if this becomes the norm, then the end-users themselves will end up doing the caching. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Gadi Evron wrote: On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: snip ISPs probably don't have an interest in BT caching because of 1) cost of ownership, 2) legal concerns (if an ISP cached a publicly distributed copy of some pirated software, who's then responsible?), They cache the web, which has the same chance of being illegal content. [..] They do have NNTP Caches though with several Terabytes of storage space and obvious newsgroups like alt.binaries.dvd-r and similar names. The reason why they don't run BT Caches is because the protocol is not made for it. NNTP is made for distribution (albeit not really for 8bit files ;), the Cache (more a wrongly implemented auto-replicating FTP server) is local to the ISP and serves their local users. As such that is only gain. Instead of having their clients use their transits, the data only gets pulled over ones and all their clients get it. For BT though, you either have to do tricks at L7 involving sniffing the lines and thus breaking end-to-end; or you end up setting up a huge BT client which automatically mirrors all the torrents on the planet and hope that only your local users use it, which most likely is not the case as most BT clients don't do network-close downloading. As such NNTP is profit, BT is not. Also, NNTP access is a service which you can sell. There exist a large number of NNTP-only services and even ISP's that have as a major selling point: access to their newsserver. Fun detail about NNTP: most companies publish how much traffic they do and even in which alt.binaries.* group the most crap is flowing. Still it seems totally legal to have those several Terabytes of data and make them available, even with the obvious names that the messages carry. The most named reason: It is a Cache and we don't put the data on it, it is automatic... yup alt.binaries.dvd.movies whatever is really not so obvious ;) Of course replace BT with most kinds of P2P network in the above of course. There are some P2P nets that try to induce some network topology though, so that you will be downloading from that person next door instead of that guy on a 56k in Timbuktoe while you are sitting on a 1Gbit NREN connect ;) But anyway what I am wondering is why ISP folks are thinking so bad about this, do you guys want: a) customers that do not use your network b) customers that do use the network Probably it is a) because of the cash. But that is strange, why sell people an 'unlimited' account when you don't want them to use it in the first place? Also if your network is not made to handle customers of type b) then upgrade your network. Clearly your customers love using it, thus more customers will follow if you keep it up and running. No better advertisement than the neighbor saying that it is great ;) Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:51:08 -0800 Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 20, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote: It doesn't seem that the P2P application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care because it doesn't directly impact them, or maybe because they don't know how to. If squid could provide a traffic localising solution which is just another traffic sink or source (e.g. a server) to an ISP, rather than something that requires enabling knobs on the network infrastructure for special handling or requires special traffic engineering for it to work, I'd think you'd get quite a bit of interest. I think there's interest from the consumer level, already: http://torrentfreak.com/review-the-wireless-BitTorrent-router/ It's early days, but if this becomes the norm, then the end-users themselves will end up doing the caching. Maybe I haven't understood what that exactly does, however it seems to me that's really just a bit-torrent client/server in the ADSL router. Certainly having a bittorrent server in the ADSL router is unique, but not really what I was getting at. What I'm imagining (and I'm making some assumptions about how bittorrent works) would be bittorrent super peer that : * announces itself as a very generous provider of bittorrent fragments. * selects which peers to offer it's generosity to, by measuring it's network proximity of those peers. I think bittorrent uses TCP, and it would seem to me that TCP's own round trip and througput measuring would be a pretty good source to measuring network locality. * This super peer could also have it's generosity announcements restricted to certain IP address ranges etc. Actually, thinking about it a bit more, for this device to work well it would need to somehow be inline with the bit torrent seed URLs, so maybe that wouldn't be feasible to have a server in the ISP's network do it. Still, if BT peer software was modified to take into account the TCP measurements when selecting peers, I think it would probably go a long way towards mitigating some of the traffic problems that P2P seems to be causing. Regards, Mark. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 20, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Mark Smith wrote: Maybe I haven't understood what that exactly does, however it seems to me that's really just a bit-torrent client/server in the ADSL router. Certainly having a bittorrent server in the ADSL router is unique, but not really what I was getting at. I understand it's not what you meant; my point is that if the SPs don't figure out how to do this, the customers will, by whatever means they have at their disposal, with always-on devices which do the distribution and seeding and caching automagically, and with a revenue model attached. I foresee consumer-level devices like this little Asus router which not only act as torrent clients/servers, but which also are woven together into caches with something like PNRP as the location service (and perhaps an innovative content producer/ distributor acting as a billing overlay prover a la FON in order to monetize same, leaving the SP with nothing). The advantage of providing caching services is that they both help preserve scare resources and result in a more pleasing user experience. As already pointed out, CAPEX/OPEX along with insertion into the network are the current barriers, along with potential legal liabilities; cooperation between content providers and SPs could help alleviate some of these problems and make it a more attractive model, and help fund this kind of infrastructure in order to make more efficient use of bandwidth at various points in the topology. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Mark Smith wrote: What I'm imagining (and I'm making some assumptions about how bittorrent works) would be bittorrent super peer that : Azereus already has functional 'proxy discovery' stuff. Its quite naive but it does the job. The only implementation I know about is the JoltId PeerCache, but its quite expensive. The initial implementation should use this for client communication. Then try to work with the P2P crowd to ratify some kind of P2P proxy discovery and communication protocol (and have more luck than WPAD :) Adrian
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:47:04 -0800 Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The advantage of providing caching services is that they both help preserve scare resources and result in a more pleasing user experience. As already pointed out, CAPEX/OPEX along with insertion into the network are the current barriers, along with potential legal liabilities; cooperation between content providers and SPs could help alleviate some of these problems and make it a more attractive model, and help fund this kind of infrastructure in order to make more efficient use of bandwidth at various points in the topology. I think you're more or less describing what already Akamai do - they're just not doing it for authorised P2P protocol distributed content (yet?). Regards, Mark. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Jan 20, 2007, at 8:10 PM, Mark Smith wrote: I think you're more or less describing what already Akamai do - they're just not doing it for authorised P2P protocol distributed content (yet?). Yes, and P2P might make sense for them to explore - but a) it doesn't help SPs smooth out bandwidth 'hotspots' in and around their access networks due to P2P activity, b) doesn't bring the content out to the very edges of the access network, where the users are, and c) isn't something which can be woven together out of more or less off-the- shelf technology with the users themselves supplying the infrastructure and paying for (and being compensated for, a la FON or SpeakEasy's WiFi sharing program) the access bandwidth. It seems to me that a FON-/Speakeasy-type bandwidth-charge compensation model for end-user P2P caching and distribution might be an interesting approach for SPs to consider, as it would reduce the CAPEX and OPEX for caching services and encourage the users themselves to subsidize the bandwidth costs to one degree or another. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Thus spake Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote: This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port blocking and QoS. This is what I am interested/scared by. Its not that hard a problem to get on top of. Caching, unfortunately, continues to be viewed as anaethma by ISP network operators in the US. Strangely enough the caching technologies aren't a problem with the content -delivery- people. US ISPs get paid on bits sent, so they're going to be _against_ caching because caching reduces revenue. Content providers, OTOH, pay the ISPs for bits sent, so they're going to be _for_ caching because it increases profits. The resulting stalemate isn't hard to predict. I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache that could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff (bittorrent especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost upwards of USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment. Basically, they're looking for a box that delivers what P2P networks inherently do by default. If the rate-limiting is sane, then only a copy (or two) will need to come in over the slow overseas pipes, and it'll be replicated and reassembled locally over fast pipes. What, exactly, is a middlebox supposed to add to this picture? It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL isn't content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to upstreams and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of view, but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right at the point where your customers connect in. So what you have is a Layer 8 problem due to not letting the network topology match the physical topology. No magical box is going to save you from hairpinning traffic between a thousand different L2TP pipes. The best you can hope for is that the rate limits for those L2TP pipes will be orders of magnitude larger than the rate limit for them to talk upstream -- and you don't need any new tools to do that, just intelligent use of what you already have. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing amount of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd love to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world and what we could to do make it easier for y'all.) As someone who voluntarily used a proxy and gave up, and has worked in an IT dept that did the same thing, it's pretty easy to explain: there are too many sites that aren't cache-friendly. It's easy for content folks to put up their own caches (or Akamaize) because they can design their sites to account for it, but an ISP runs too much risk of breaking users' experiences when they apply caching indiscriminately to the entire Web. Non-idempotent GET requests are the single biggest breakage I ran into, and the proliferation of dynamically-generated Web 2.0 pages (or faulty Expires values) are the biggest factor that wastes bandwidth by preventing caching. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Thus spake Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chances are that other torrent client authors are going to see [BitThief] as major defiance and start implementing things like filtering what client can connect to who based on the client name/ID string (ex. uTorrent, Azureus, MainLine), which as we all know, is going to last maybe 3 weeks. BitComet has virtually dropped off the face of the 'net since the authors decided to not honor the private flag. Even public trackers _that do not serve private torrents_ frequently block it out of community solidarity. Note that the blocking hasn't been incorporated into clients, because it's largely unnecessary. This in turn will solicit the BitThief authors implementing a feature that allows the client to either spoof its client name or use randomly- generated ones. Rinse lather repeat, until everyone is fighting rather than cooperating. Will the BT protocol be reformed to address this? 50/50 chance. There are lots of smart folks working on improving the tit-for-tat mechanism, and I bet the algorithm (but _not_ the protocol) implemented in popular clients will be tuned to adjust for freeloaders over time. However, the vast majority of people are going to use clients that implement things as intended because (a) it's simpler, and (b) it performs better. Freeloading does work, but it takes several times as long to download files even with the existing, easily-exploited mechanisms. Note that all it takes to turn any standard client into a BitThief is tuning a few of the easily-accessible parameters (e.g. max connections, connection rate, and upload rate). As many folks have found out with various P2P clients over the years, doing so really hurts you in practice, but you can freeload anything you want if you have patience. This is not particularly novel research; it just quantifies common knowledge. The result of these items already been shown: BT encryption. I personally know of 3 individuals who have their client to use en- cryption only (disabling non-encrypted connection support). For security? Nope -- solely because their ISP uses a rate limiting device. Bram Cohen's official statement is that using encryption to get around this is silly because not many ISPs are implementing such devices (maybe not *right now*, Bram, but in the next year or two, they likely will): http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/29886.html Bram is delusional; few ISPs these days _don't_ implement rate-limiting for BT traffic. And, in response, nearly every client implements encryption to get around it. The root problem is ISPs aren't trying to solve the problem the right way -- they're seeing BT taking up huge amounts of BW and are trying to stop that, instead of trying to divert that traffic so that it costs them less to deliver. ( My ISP doesn't limit BT, but I've talked with their tech support folks and the response was that if I use excessive bandwidth they'll rate-limit my entire port regardless of protocol. They gave me a ballpark of what excessive means to them, I set my client below that level, and I've never had a problem. This works better for me since all my non-BT traffic isn't competing for limited port bandwidth, and it works better for them since my BT traffic is unencrypted and easy to de-prioritize -- but they don't limit it per se, just mark it to be dropped first during congestion, which is fair. Everyone wins. ) S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Its not that hard a problem to get on top of. Caching, unfortunately, continues to be viewed as anaethma by ISP network operators in the US. Strangely enough the caching technologies aren't a problem with the content -delivery- people. if we enbrace p2p, today's heavy hitting bad users are tomorrow's wonderful local cachers. randy
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
holy kook bait. it's amazing after all these years, and companies, how many people, and companies, still don't get it. /rf
