AS11443 / OLM-03 / 216.71.0.0/17 unreachable
Hi over 4 hours the netblock 216.71.0.0/17 was not reachable. currently it works again (ober bbn-planet) OLM LLC (ASN-OLM) 3080 Ogden Ave Lisle, IL 60532 US before it was reachable over this paths (fom ris: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/ris/rrc05.html) 216.71.0.0/17 2002-07-09 07:43:20202.12.28.190 4777 2516 701 1 11443 216.71.0.0/17 2002-07-06 10:48:35 212.20.151.234 13129 6461 701 11443 216.71.0.0/17 2002-07-07 05:29:54 193.0.0.56 9057 3549 11443 11443 at the routeserver of bbnplanet (genuity) the network was also not in bgp-table. gblx said, the the circuit to OLM was definitly down. reason unkown. does sbdy know more information about this? bye, Ingo Flaschberger -- we own the fibre; 09.06.1998 illiad
Re: Readiness for IPV6
Related to that, a growing number of Internet2 connectors now do native IPv6 peering with the Abilene backbone (rather than tunnelling their v6 connectivity), including NYSERnet, the Pittsburgh Gigapop, Great Plains, WiscNet, 6Tap, CUDI, ANS, MAX, Surfnet, and APAN. (see, for example: http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0207BL=abilene-ops-lP=R2) The Northern Crossroads (www.nox.org) is the New England I2 Gigapop. They're planning on shifting to native v6 within the next few weeks, though I think only two of the schools connected to it have concrete plans to use it Eric :)
Re: Readiness for IPV6
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Leinen) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 10:51 CEST]: An interesting question is what it would take to support IPv6 on appliance-like routers such as IP-over-Cable or -xDSL CPE. In the retail space I actually see some interest in running IPv6, because it makes it much more feasible to operate a small network at home, and I have the impression that home users now lead enterprises in terms of IPv6-enabled OS deployment (Windows XP and Linux in particular). It would also be nice if operators with end users started offering native multicast. Although the AMS-IX multicast initiative started off with lots of enthusiasm, two years later it seems to have died almost completely. Back to the subject of IPv6: One operator here in The Netherlands (60K+ ADSL customers, I think) operates a tunnel broker for its customers and hands out a /60 prefix on request. I heard it recently enabled its 400th customer IPv6 tunnel. -- Niels.
email problems
apologies in advance for this somewhat off topic posting. back in may, a number of you contacted me indicating that there were problems with email that i was sending out (for example, some of you are getting no visible From: or To:) one of the authors of my email client wishes to investigate; if anyone can supply complete copies of such an email (including _complete_ headers), i'd appreciate it. obviously, send them directly to me, not to the entire nanog list. problems have been reported both with some versions of M$ Outlook and Netscape mail. thanks in advance, richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
At 10:51 AM 7/9/2002 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure, break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on. Speaking from a provider who used to run multicast, and now doesn't: Customers don't want it. I can count our customer requests for multicast on both hands for the last two years. Of those, only one thought it was important, the rest were just playing with it. In fact, pretty much the only place we see it anymore is on RFP's from educational groups. My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast. Yahoo/Broadcast.com pushed this pretty heavily. MS's own media player supports multicast, so there definitely a *lot* of clients out there. http://broadcast.yahoo.com/home.html There are a list of providers supporting multicast in conjunction with Yahoo/Broadcast.com found at: http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/ I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... ) To find out if you are viewing via unicast/multicast in Windows Media Player, the option is View-Statistics, then in the Network section... -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless!\ Director, Engineering | |\ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\-- \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote: It's a cute list. Where's ATT (with all the old Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either. UUNET supports multicast, although the quality of that experience for me wasn't very good. Last I heard its one price to receive multicast and additional to generate multicast through them. John
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. So why cant the data and control plane be separate for content delivery? Use multicast for the data part, but stick with unicast for the control. In other words, end-users will still need to explicitly register/deregister with content providers to receive content. This will allow the content providers to do everything they could do previously with unicast data. except now end-users will receive the content over the multicast tree. Of course the ISPs will also have to somehow separate the data and control plane, so their billing issues with multicast can be addressed... Rajesh.
Re: Readiness for IPV6
Hi quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4. i.e. if you take the average amount of data sent/received per node, whether per protocol or per OS, how much of it is able to use V6 currently? i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves). Regards --Rob
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Hi, There is also a cart and horse issue here: Where is the pervasive content? At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n. My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies starts IP multicasting free full length cable cut R-rated adult films in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for IP multicast support. Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will also need to be something innocuous, like the Field Hockey Channel or the Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel so that people will be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal interest when calling to request IP multicast support: Um, hi, my friends who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something to your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast. I'm, uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to watch, uh, field hockey on my PC. Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this sort of thing would. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example that comes to mind. Regards, Joe
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
At 11:16 AM 7/9/2002 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:06:10AM -0500, Chris Parker wrote: My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast. Yahoo/Broadcast.com pushed this pretty heavily. MS's own media player supports multicast, so there definitely a *lot* of clients out there. There is a lot of client _SOFTWARE_ that supports it. There are very few clients on multicast enabled networks. I've got a couple million... not that many use it, though. There are a list of providers supporting multicast in conjunction with Yahoo/Broadcast.com found at: http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/ I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... ) It's a cute list. Where's ATT (with all the old Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either. I didn't say it was ubiquitous. While some are notably lacking, you do have some larger networks on that list. Note this is also just partners/peers with Yahoo/Broadcast, not everyone who supports multicast on their networks. Almost as important, people like Sprint are on the list. Last I checked (admittedly, over a year ago) there was no multicast for Sprint DSL customers, and Sprint high speed customers had to specifically request it, it was not turned on by default. Result, less than 1% of Sprint's customers actually had it turned on, I believe. I'd be suprised if 1% of _residential end users_ were on multicast enabled networks today. Very surprised. It may be a bit higher, but the number who access multicast content is decidedly tiny. More content would probably push it higher, as much fun as it is watching the ISS live on Nasa TV, it does get a bit dry. :) -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless!\ Director, Engineering | |\ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\-- \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote: http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/ I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... ) It's a cute list. Where's ATT (with all the old @Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either. Almost as important, people like Sprint are on the list. Last I checked (admittedly, over a year ago) there was no multicast for Sprint DSL customers, and Sprint high speed customers had to specifically request it, it was not turned on by default. Result, less than 1% of Sprint's customers actually had it turned on, I believe. I'd be suprised if 1% of _residential end users_ were on multicast enabled networks today. Very surprised. Speaking as the person who got Voyager.Net on the list, here's what the deal was at the time (~2+ years ago) You configure a tunnel between you and the broadcast.com folks and speak mbgp+msdp over it to get their (S, G) state info and traffic. They gave information on how to enable the dialup ports, etc.. for multicast. We did have a few customers complain what's this 224 crap traffic you are sending us. The broadcast.com people didn't seem to want to help bridge the native gap between upstreams and the edge customers. Providers I know have multicast enabled and available for customers in some way/shape/form: CW, GBLX, Sprint, Qwest, UUNet/UUCast, Verio It's my understanding that Sprint has enabled pim on all customer-facing interfaces and is configured for nlri unicast multicast on all their bgp sessions so once a customer toggles their end to unicast+multicast they can get mbgp prefixes. I do suggest getting your routes in the table, which will not cause instability then later look at/concentrate on the rest, pim, msdp, etc.. - Jared -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Cynical/realist, it's a fine line. While p0rn does drive a lot of the utilization on the net, I doubt that the those content providers are going to be happy with sending their content un-protected across the net for anyone (paying or not) to see. So now you are into a encryption issue where you need to insure the receiving end can securely receive the encryption key and not share it. Not insurmountable, but not (that I'm aware of) possible with today's applications. The upshot is today's client applications need to grow to add these and other discussed features and functions to help the content providers. David -Original Message- From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:55 AM To: David Sinn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Hi, There is also a cart and horse issue here: Where is the pervasive content? At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n. My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies starts IP multicasting free full length cable cut R-rated adult films in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for IP multicast support. Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will also need to be something innocuous, like the Field Hockey Channel or the Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel so that people will be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal interest when calling to request IP multicast support: Um, hi, my friends who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something to your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast. I'm, uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to watch, uh, field hockey on my PC. Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this sort of thing would. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example that comes to mind. Regards, Joe
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Thus spake David Sinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is also a cart and horse issue here: Where is the pervasive content? No, it's a chicken and egg problem :) Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. That assumes there is no signaling. Commercial content will be encrypted and clients will have to get a key (possibly for free). Key distribution can be tracked and billed perfectly. Even for cleartext content, clients should be sending RTCP reports periodically. I think a bigger issue is that multicast is only truly compelling for high-bandwidth applications, and there's just not a critical mass of users with enough bandwidth to justify deployment today. Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications; on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not settle for the movie starts every 15 minutes when they've been used to live VOD with unicast. The only saving grace may be things like TiVo, where an intelligent agent slurps up live mcasts in hopes that the user may want to watch it live later. S
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Here's my $0.02 on the whole multicast thing. We've been at this for a number of years now, and robust, ubiquitous multicast on the internet is really nowhere in sight. Kind of sounds like QoS, and maybe there's a lesson there (20 years of research and IETF activity, yielding, well, what?). Given the amount of time and resource we've spent on multicast, the question one might ask is why hasn't multicast succeeded? My guess is that it is because the demand from any of the potential users of the service just isn't there (not at internet scales, at least not now). Add to this that there are other, possibly simpler mechanisms to accomplish much of the functionality that multicast envisions (e.g. application layer multicast; this even hits dial-up eyes with no modification), problems with billing models, and difficultly in deploying the existing set of protocols (too much complexity, broken architecturally on shared access exchanges, etc), and you might expect just about what we've experienced. Dave On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:56:34AM -0700, David Sinn wrote: Cynical/realist, it's a fine line. While p0rn does drive a lot of the utilization on the net, I doubt that the those content providers are going to be happy with sending their content un-protected across the net for anyone (paying or not) to see. So now you are into a encryption issue where you need to insure the receiving end can securely receive the encryption key and not share it. Not insurmountable, but not (that I'm aware of) possible with today's applications. The upshot is today's client applications need to grow to add these and other discussed features and functions to help the content providers. David -Original Message- From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:55 AM To: David Sinn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Hi, There is also a cart and horse issue here: Where is the pervasive content? At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n. My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies starts IP multicasting free full length cable cut R-rated adult films in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for IP multicast support. Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will also need to be something innocuous, like the Field Hockey Channel or the Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel so that people will be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal interest when calling to request IP multicast support: Um, hi, my friends who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something to your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast. I'm, uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to watch, uh, field hockey on my PC. Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this sort of thing would. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example that comes to mind. Regards, Joe
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications; on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not settle for the movie starts every 15 minutes when they've been used to live VOD with unicast. The only saving grace may be things like TiVo, where an intelligent agent slurps up live mcasts in hopes that the user may want to watch it live later. Really? What about DF-like technologies? Dave
Re: Readiness for IPV6
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:32:02PM +0200, fingers wrote: i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves). Yes, after trying to help a friend get IPv6 running on his WindowsXP system (you have to drop into a DOS box.. (but they did away with DOS, right?)), he decided it wasn't worth it if he had to do it that way. At some point M$ might make it user friendly for the windows users but at this point it's /not/ something that joe blow customer will be doing. Regards --Rob -- Matthew S. HallacyFUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
RE: Readiness for IPV6
These are two seperate issues. One is, should you base your hardware choice on V6 support? The other is, will there be a mass rollout of v6 in the 2004-2005 time frame? The first issue is specific to your network, but I suspect it's a low priority for most. As far as a mass rollout of v6 - I'm not holding my breath, 3G or not. I suspect that v4 is here until we run out of address space, and from all indications, that is not happening any time soon. Foundry, in particular, has always tended to be very customer-driven in their feature sets. I suspect any support for IPv6 on their platform would be greatly dependent on customer requirements. Thanks, - Daniel Golding Phil Rosenthal Said Yes, I don't think we need it 'right now'. My concern is that at this point many companies are still buying routers that as of today have no support for IPv6. Given that a BigIron/65xx is mostly hardware forwarding, I speculate that they wont be able to support IPv6 with a trivial software upgrade (at least not at the same performance level). So, is someone buying such equipment today 'wasting money' since it will be completely obsolete with the onset of mass IPv6 roll-out likely in 2004 or 2005? --Phil
RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
There is also a cart and horse issue here: Where is the pervasive content? Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. I worked for a startup in 1999 that was doing just that. Neilsen's for multicast. It was cool while I was there, but it quickly became clear that the product was ahead of it's time. They now do event streaming and I think they support unicast and multicast. Without a network that supports it, multicast apps are useless. jas
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Chris Parker wrote: It may be a bit higher, but the number who access multicast content is decidedly tiny. More content would probably push it higher, as much fun as it is watching the ISS live on Nasa TV, it does get a bit dry. :) I think this is a case of if you build it, they will come. RealPlayer's default configuration is to first attempt to use multicast, then fail-over to UDP, then fail-over to TCP. In other words, if multicast is available, the program will use it. I don't know about other streaming clients, but I would guess that others would behave similarly. -- David
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Thus spake David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's my $0.02 on the whole multicast thing. We've been at this for a number of years now, and robust, ubiquitous multicast on the internet is really nowhere in sight. Kind of sounds like QoS, and maybe there's a lesson there (20 years of research and IETF activity, yielding, well, what?). OTOH, multicast and QOS are both widely deployed inside most large corporate networks and are rapidly approaching ubiquity. They both effectively solve business problems and therefore there's a big motivation for them, and the IETF's efforts have been extremely fruitful. Don't let the IETF's (or NANOG's) ISP-centric membership blind you to that. S
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Thus spake Jeff Aitken [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:49:11AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications; on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not settle for the movie starts every 15 minutes Just for the sake of argument I'll point out that this is exactly how DirecTV offers PPV movies... each of the 30-odd movies available for viewing in a given month are listed on one or more channels with defined start times. Yes, that's the PPV model. ATT Broadband calls it InDemand since it's probably fraud to call it on demand. Most hotels have VOD now, and that tells me consumer acceptance is better for VOD but the technology just doesn't scale yet. Obviously this may not translate to on-demand movie streaming over the internet, but since DirecTV seems to be at least a little bit successful with this approach you may not want to be so quick to rule it out. They're certainly successful with big events like the Tyson/Lewis fight, but how much money does a PPV movie really bring in? Obviously they wouldn't do it if it were a total loser, but the cost to carry is near zero and $4.95/viewing is a huge disadvantage vs. rentals. Whether people will pay money to watch movies streamed over the Internet (as opposed to traditional media such as cable or satellite) is an entirely different question, of course. The question, of course, is whether the cost people are willing to pay will cover the cost of providing the service. Today, it's nowhere close. S
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:16:38AM -0700, David Meyer wrote: Given the amount of time and resource we've spent on multicast, the question one might ask is why hasn't multicast succeeded? Has it not ? It is succeeding in every place where you have a closed financial business model from content to eyeball. It is purely failing to be established as a network connectivity infrastructure component by access ISPs because these access ISPs do not invest in their own future if you ask me. If we would have had the same business model driven network infrastructure and technology deployment politics that we have today in the beginning of the 1990th then we would not have the Internet==TheWeb today. Luckily at that time the IP unicast infrastructure was expanded predominantly by research, academic and other public funding (DoD, ES, NSF, etc..) so that we reached a critical mass of eyballs that made the upcoming technology of the web viable enough to get businesses jumpstarted into that web technology. And see where it is today. IP multicasts main intrinsic downside is that it is not a good transitional technology today. This means that you first must provide for a critical mass of eyballs before you will get new content using it. Who did jumpstart the web with content ? The incumbant book stores, CD dealers or retailers ? No, of course not. It was new content. The incumbants had an established infrastructure, thank you very much, i am making lots of money out of analog cable-tv at dismal quality, go away with new technology. Did the web startups have the money to demand the establishment of the Internet infrastucture ? No, not in the beginning - only after the ralley set off. It just kicked off by the initial pre-web user basis and grew from there on. And see what growth curve it got. Don't tell me you wouldn't want to repeat that again - and this time you'll all sell your stock at the ideal time, right ;-)) ? Who today can do streaming media across the Internet ? Well, mostly the big players because the financial overhead in using overlay networks is way too high. How progressive are the big players ? Well... how about the music industry. Where would we be with streaming audio in the Internet if it was not for Napster ? So right, there is starting to be some movie-on demand download now. Is it attractive ? Well... we can argue that for a long time, but in the endthe new technology is the best chance for new content and/or new providers, not necessarily to replace incumbant solutions - because for incumbant solutions everybody just makes a cost comparison, and that's a much longer term goal to reach once you already have a paid off infrastructure in place. With ip multicast as an end-to-end transport component you could repeat the success model of the web for streaming content to large number of receivers. Think about the anybody startup who could broadcast a streaming video to arbitrary many people like he could back in 1995 reach 'arbitrary' many people with this web thing application. If we would have let's say 10 mio eyeballs @ home that reliably could get ip multicast, then this would be a critical mass for smaller content providers to start out providing content for them. Why is it not happening ? See above: Because investment in ISPs today is driven by marketing and marketing is driven purely by the solution buzzword. IP multicast is not a solution in itself, it is a technology. If you have a business case with an application, content, control the whole path and have the eyeballs - then you have a solution, otherwise you just have a piece of the infrastructure. But those business cases are always individual ones, and even though they can be big and successfull (like in the finance markets or upcoming in enterprise ip multicast transit), you will often not even know afterwards that IP multicast is used in them and that over time leaves a totally skewed picture on the success of ip multicast. And we don't really talk about these business specific solutions that IP multicast thrives from today. What we talk about here is the main and open ended promise of IP multicast as a ubiquitous network transport component in the ISP transit space, right ? This open ended promise is exactly what we have seen to play out so well with IP unicast and the web. How do you get this open ended message into marketing heads and repeat it for ip multicast ? I don't know: IP multicast has been around for too long, so it is not a marketing buzzword anymore, and sound investment into infrastucture components is not on the agenda of access ISPs. FUD rules. My guess is that it is because the demand from any of the potential users of the service just isn't there (not at internet scales, at least not now). Think 1995, think web. What demand ? How do you measure demand, how can you predict demand ? You generate hype ? There is no demand is just backward looking: I do not have eggs. I do not need need chicken. What
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
on 7/9/2002 11:49 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote: I think a bigger issue is that multicast is only truly compelling for high-bandwidth applications, and there's just not a critical mass of users with enough bandwidth to justify deployment today. Multimedia is the common example but I actually find multicast more useful for common administrative services like NTP. I've also done some simple research into multicast DHCP (goodbye mandatory unicast proxies) and DNS (goodbye mandatory unicast proxies) which has looked promising for the small investigative work done. In this regard, multicasting the small chatter stuff is actually much more compelling, although these examples all apply to a local administrative scope and not to multicasting across the Internet in general. The issue with the latter is that there is no killer app which requires it. As a result, ISPs don't offer it, firewalls/NATs don't support it, and so forth. I've never had a network connection which supported it. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
the IETF's efforts have been extremely fruitful. That is good to hear. Dave
RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
I guess I'll toss in my two cents here. I see this all as a weird kind of catch-22 on how multicast would ever become viable. To get multicast going, people have to convince their ISPs that multicast is a good idea. Now, the large businesses that provide the content have done a decent job of getting the ISPs to support (at least nominally) multicast. The problem comes in at the content consumer level (dial, DSL etc). To get these providers to support multicast, their users will probably have to complain to them and convince them it's worth their while. The majority of users will not make this effort. Why should they? The only benefit they get from multicast is if they run a LAN (not so unlikely) and have multiple listeners for the same multicast stream (much less likely). So, for most consumers, there is no direct benefit for multicast. Yes, if consumers where just a little more far sighted, the eventual cost savings multicast would provide might be an incentive. Then again, I think most consumers are jaded enough to think that they'd never see the savings anyway, and the content provider would just pocket the money (or at least I am). snip a discussion of free market economics here If multicast is ever to become viable, either there will have to be a grass roots campaign for it from all the dsl/cable/dial up users (again, not likely as they have no real motivation), or several large content providers go to the dsl/cable/dial up providers and make a push for them to enable multicast or else. -Nate
Re: Kudos to Qwest
then you are obviously missing the kudos @ level3 :) i've seen them be quite prompt in turning ckts up also. - jared On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:00:58PM -0400, Vincent J. Bono wrote: We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Kudos to Qwest
Maybe some of the telco's are finally learning that the quicker you can install, the sooner you can bill. :) K Vincent J. BonoTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] vbono@vinny.cc: org Subject: Kudos to Qwest Sent by: owner-nanog@m erit.edu 07/09/2002 04:00 PM We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.
RE: Kudos to Qwest
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Aint that the truth. -Original Message- From: Vincent J. Bono [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:33 PM To: Kyle C. Bacon Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Kudos to Qwest That never stopped Worldcom from billing. Installation? We don't need no stinking Installation! :-) - Original Message - From: Kyle C. Bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vincent J. Bono [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Kudos to Qwest Maybe some of the telco's are finally learning that the quicker you can install, the sooner you can bill. :) K Vincent J. BonoTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] vbono@vinny.cc: org Subject: Kudos to Qwest Sent by: owner-nanog@m erit.edu 07/09/2002 04:00 PM We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.
ot: hardware
Sorry to be a little off topic but what's the best place to shop for used hardware these days. Is isp-equipment of any value any more or is ebay better:). Scott
Re: Readiness for IPV6
Hi quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4. i.e. if you take the average amount of data sent/received per node, whether per protocol or per OS, how much of it is able to use V6 currently? i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves). Regards --Rob The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps The production root servers see 4000-18000qps This might change in the next month as we bring online com/net/org and figure out how to open up the testbed for more users. --bill
Re: Kudos to Qwest
Of course, the other question is whether Qwest will be around in six months or if it will face the same Enron/Worldcom implosion we're seeing now... On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Vincent J. Bono wrote: We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.
Re: Readiness for IPV6
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 23:06 CEST]: The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps Where are those hidden? -- Niels.
Re: Kudos to Qwest
At 04:20 PM 7/9/2002 -0500, Robert A. Hayden wrote: Of course, the other question is whether Qwest will be around in six months or if it will face the same Enron/Worldcom implosion we're seeing now... On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Vincent J. Bono wrote: We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. Damn, that's better than even you, Vin. Regards, -- Martin Hannigan[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
Not having seen a copy of the other worm, I wouldn't know. Regardless, would you want a worm, even a weak and ineffective one on your boxes? -j On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:29:41PM -0700, Patrick Thomas wrote: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:29:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Legate [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose Is this a new apache worm, or the one that was circulating a week or so ago that was described as weak and ineffective ? thanks. ---end quoted text--- -- Jason Legate (W6SN) Sr. Net/Sys Admin, eVine, Inc. work- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | home- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key Fingerprint: 4FB4 2228 DE63 3BBA 7B72 40DD 13D5 2547 821D 2909 msg03491/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Kudos to Qwest
That sounds like the path needed little more than cross-connects, and the 24 hr loopback test. It also sounded like both companies worked well together to expedite construction. I can remember circuits I turned up that waited months for some vendor on the end to do their work. The old Bell Scamlantic...or Versleaon should be a warning whenever seen on a order... At 16:25 7/9/02 -0400, you wrote: then you are obviously missing the kudos @ level3 :) i've seen them be quite prompt in turning ckts up also. - jared On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:00:58PM -0400, Vincent J. Bono wrote: We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Kudos to Qwest
Well, theres a matter of customer acceptance too then, Let the billing begin!! At 16:27 7/9/02 -0400, you wrote: Maybe some of the telco's are finally learning that the quicker you can install, the sooner you can bill. :) K Vincent J. BonoTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] vbono@vinny.cc: org Subject: Kudos to Qwest Sent by: owner-nanog@m erit.edu 07/09/2002 04:00 PM We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.
Billing Notice
This mail is to notify you that the OC768c that you have ordered has been installed (sometime soon ... promise ... after the check clears). Please send the check for 1,000,000,000.00 USD for the first six months of service to: CASH c/o Joseph T. Klein retirement fund. P.O.Box 551510 Las Vegas, NV. 89155-1510 Thank You. --On Tuesday, 09 July 2002 17:52 -0400 blitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, theres a matter of customer acceptance too then, Let the billing begin!! -- Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature? -- anon msg03495/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. This is even more annoying than HTML Mail. The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have names that start with ATT This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT attachments. (flame off) - Original Message - From: Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Billing Notice
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
John Palmer wrote: I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. Agreed, that is annoying. It appears to be the result of PGP signed messages, from every instance I can see: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary===32168813== and: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=s9fJI615cBHmzTOP Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Try filtering on the text 'application/pgp-signature' and you won't see them anymore. Mike
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting. - Original Message - From: Nipper, Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message John, use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know ... Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express - - Original Message - From: John Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. This is even more annoying than HTML Mail. The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have names that start with ATT This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT attachments. (flame off) - Original Message - From: Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Billing Notice
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in my MUA OT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:29:20 -0500 John Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. This is even more annoying than HTML Mail. The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have names that start with ATT This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT attachments. (flame off) FLAME ON! That would be annoying if it were true. What you are seeing is PGP/MIME, a standards based protocol for sending secure and authenticated messages. For some reason, you are using a non-standards compliant mail program with known security risks that can not recognize PGP/MIME as a valid MIME type. This could be why you are so concerned with opening attachments. Please filter all messages with the words PGP, Secure, and/or NANOG to prevent this misunderstanding in the future. - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP KeyID#: 0xFB966670 Anti-Microsoft Zelot since 1989 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9K2oquLPldPuWZnARAv3qAJ9DVFQsFcCQdMOtAevy5j36BtMlpQCfc3Wk 81TaUdycdmmxAWKFmXlYf+c= =DOCd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:50:52PM -0500, John Palmer wrote: There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting. Just because it is the dominant MUA does not make it correct. There are plenty of MUA's out there that have no problem displaying those messages. If you want to see them, then use one of those MUA's, or get MS to fix its mailers. I suppose the reason that outlook doesn't support PGP attachments isn't because MS is promoting a different standard? So much for interoperability. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Itsannoying and no one can see your message
There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. Uh, you _are_ joking, right? -Bill
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Itsannoying and no one can see your message
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, John Palmer wrote: : : There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem : your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant : desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop : fighting. Uh, no. I *don't* need to get used to it and there *are* things wrong with it... scott : : - Original Message - : From: Nipper, Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] : To: John Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM : Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying :and no one can see your message : : : John, : : use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know : ... : : Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express - : : - Original Message - : From: John Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] : To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM : Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its : annoying and no one can see your message : : : : I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending : these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. : : This is even more annoying than HTML Mail. : : The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have : names that start with ATT : : This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because : opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings : read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT : attachments. : : (flame off) : : : - Original Message - : From: Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM : Subject: Billing Notice : : : : : : :
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Toerless Eckert wrote: FUD. What problem with billing models ? If you are an ISP, you are selling bandwidth. If another receiver joins the content , you get another piece of egress bandwidth filled up which hopefully is being paid for. If you need to cross-charge this back to the ingress-point, so do it. You just technically can't simply have accounting points on your exchange points anymore if you need to do so, you also need them on the delivery side of your network. More complex things than this have been done in the past. And of course, that could even be improved if demand for technology improvements was there (like eyeball count transmission via PIM). How about as a service provider... How could you possibly bill someone for a packet if you have no idea how much of your network resources it will consume? Most people bill at the customers' port, as a receiver of multicast there are no issues, but as a sender I havn't seen anyone come up with a satisfactory way to charge for it. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Kudos to Qwest
At 05:50 PM 7/9/2002 -0400, blitz wrote: That sounds like the path needed little more than cross-connects, and the 24 hr loopback test. That's definitely enough for it to take months. Regards, -- Martin Hannigan[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Readiness for IPV6
Bill Manning wrote: quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4. Check http://www.sixxs.net/presentation/ipv6-ripe42_files/frame.htm or HTML: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-i pv6-ipng/ which explains the IPng (www.ipng.nl) setup and upcoming SixXS (www.sixxs.net) and has builtin mugshots of some traffic stats, live stats are available per user for the IPng.nl project (http://www.ipng.nl - IPng.nl Users - select user) SNIP The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps The production root servers see 4000-18000qps 8- jeroen@purgatory:~$ dig ::1 -t ns . SNIP ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 384929 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. SNIP . 384929 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 471329 IN A 198.41.0.4 SNIP M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 471329 IN A 202.12.27.33 ---8 But no IPv6, where did you hide them.*snikker* I don't mind testing them :) Greets, Jeroen
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Toerless Eckert wrote: FUD. What problem with billing models ? If you are an ISP, you are selling bandwidth. If another receiver joins the content , you get another piece of egress bandwidth filled up which hopefully is being paid for. If you need to cross-charge this back to the ingress-point, so do it. You just technically can't simply have accounting points on your exchange points anymore if you need to do so, you also need them on the delivery side of your network. More complex things than this have been done in the past. And of course, that could even be improved if demand for technology improvements was there (like eyeball count transmission via PIM). How about as a service provider... How could you possibly bill someone for a packet if you have no idea how much of your network resources it will consume? If I source a 1Mb/s stream my upstream can be assured that it will use no greater than 1Mb/s on each of their multicast transit links... that may require a different billing structure than unicast but it's easy to measure (netflow) or bill for... their internal network make look strange though.. if they have a full mesh (mess maybe) mpls network provisioned on top of their access circuits they may carry the same traffic more than once of the same link... such are the joys of tunnels. Most people bill at the customers' port, as a receiver of multicast there are no issues, but as a sender I havn't seen anyone come up with a satisfactory way to charge for it. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Re: Readiness for IPV6
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:54PM -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote: start run cmd ipv6install That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact that actually adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine. Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial deployments Depends on how you define 'suitable', I'm expecting a whole new breed of exploits. -- Matthew S. HallacyFUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
RE: Readiness for IPV6
Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:54PM -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote: start run cmd ipv6install That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact that actually adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine. flame Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS? Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS. A thing like this: 8- Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp. C:\ -8 is called a Command Prompt and has nothing to do with DOS. Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ? It's shell everywhere then :) Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial deployments Depends on how you define 'suitable', I'm expecting a whole new breed of exploits. They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the development versions of the stack :) And everything has bugs /Flame And now for some usefull content: http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/ http://research.microsoft.com/msripv6/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howitworks/communications/ nameadrmgmt/introipv6.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/Downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/faq.asp And you'd probably like http://www.hs247.com/ too with loads of links or what about: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/IP/IPng/ And as for your it's difficult': http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.htmlforcepage=windows.html Or the single line: ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1 Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection uses Neighbor Discovery link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42 preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42, 2591593s/604393s (addrconf) Tada ;) I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people. Maybe also a nice tool for people saying but IPv4 has a GUI on windows you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your DOS prompt ;) btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference. /end of (re-)education Greets, Jeroen
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just because it is the dominant MUA does not make it correct. There are plenty of MUA's out there that have no problem displaying those messages. Apologies in advance for perpetuating this OT flame war Anyone with MUA replacement suggestions not covered below, please send them directly. I have been searching for the last year to replace OE. Thus far, it is the only IMAP client I have found which has these two critical qualities: 1) Does not crash attempting to load headers from an IMAP mailbox +500MB in size / +2000 messages. I use server-side filters and segregate mail based on date into subfolders by hand, but still can't avoid this condition from happening occasionally (i.e. long weekend) even with a lot of maintenance (and aggressive use of RBLs). And this on a machine with 768MB of memory, it shouldn't be a resources issue Ironically, the full version of Outlook chokes just as bad as every other client I've tried, but OE has proven itself a pinnacle of stability (I cannot recall the last time it crashed). 2) Will display the unread count of every IMAP folder without manual checking on my behalf. Due to the environment issues mentioned above, the most important stuff has to be filtered server-side into a sub-mailbox that is not deluged with spam and more mundane matters. I don't care as much about the unread count of Inbox as I do of Trouble. In short, I'm using OE because I need a functional IMAP client that isn't crashing every time I sneeze. The short list that I have tried includes: - Netscape Messenger, vers. 4.7 - 6.x (both Windows and unix) - Mozilla release 1 and prior - Mutt, pine and kmail (on both linux and *BSD) - Eudora latest release It is the mail situation which has kept me tied to windows. Perhaps I should just change my e-mail address Mike P.S. Far be it from me to defend OE, but since at least Sept 1999- the month I switched to IMAP and have archives to date it- I have had exactly 0 virus infections. Perhaps it's because I read bugtraq and patch religiously, or perhaps it's because I know better than to load .bat/com/exe/pif/scr files received via e-mail. However, I do not maintain anything in the address book, in the expectation that one *will* eventually slip through.
[OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:01:35AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: flame Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS? Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS. A thing like this: 8- Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp. C:\ -8 is called a Command Prompt and has nothing to do with DOS. Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ? It's shell everywhere then :) Pardon me: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter. COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:n] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG] [snip rest of output] Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. [snip] They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the development versions of the stack :) And everything has bugs As soon as it's in use enough for an exploit to be useful, it will be. /Flame [snip links] Don't forget http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/default.asp Which instructs you to go to a command prompt, like I said =) And as for your it's difficult': http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.htmlforcepage=windows.html Or the single line: ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1 Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection uses Neighbor Discovery link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42 preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42, 2591593s/604393s (addrconf) Tada ;) Yes, this is too difficult for 'joe blow user', as I said. I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people. Users do not read documentation. Maybe also a nice tool for people saying but IPv4 has a GUI on windows you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your DOS prompt ;) If a user can't point, click, and go, they're unlikely to do something, I've dealt with people that went over a month without their internet access simply because they were afraid they would have to troubleshoot their internet connection over the phone. btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference. Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier than typing start cmd from the DOS command prompt. Greets, Jeroen -- Matthew S. HallacyFUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
RE: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: July 9, 2002 8:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6 Pardon me: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter. COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:n] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG] [snip rest of output] Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. Pardon me: [brand new command prompt from the WinXP command prompt button] Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\Documents and Settings\Viviencommand Microsoft(R) Windows DOS (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001. C:\DOCUME~1\VIVIEN C:\DOCUME~1\VIVIEN It looks to me like you have cmd.exe, which is a 32-bit Windoze-native etc shell, and then you have command.com which is used to run legacy DOS stuff. Command.com feels a _lot_ slower to me, too. Vivien -- Vivien M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
Dave Hughes says raspberries to qwest Fwd: RE: you see you simplyare not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to Qwest
From: Dave Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Gordon Cook' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to Qwest Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:52:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Put this in the nanog list. Raspberries to Qwest And Qwest has been unable to disconnect a T-1 local loop to me for 6 months and is still trying to bill us - for no service Dave Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cook: I have heard the full story on the phone from Dave. It is remarkable. many hours spent trying to meticulously jump through every qwest hoop - all to no avail. a loose translation from memory is -- keep your customer and his imaginary revenue on the books forever by making sure that part of your operation can never determine that he has left. revenue gaining side becomes responsive - just black hole anything that looses revenue -Original Message- From: Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to Qwest Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Vincent J. Bono [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Kudos to Qwest Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:00:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk X-Loop: nanog We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. -- -- The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlSummary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml
Re: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
At 07:27 PM 7/9/2002 -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: Pardon me: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter. Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. At the risk of prolonging an exceptionally off-topic thread... if you run the (deprecated) MS-DOS command interpreter in Windows XP (command.exe) rather than the Win 2K / XP CLI (cmd.exe), you should not be surprised when command.exe tells you that it is what it is -- a version of the MS-DOS command interpreter for Win 2000 / XP. If you run cmd.exe on Win 2K (I don't have XP), you get: C:\cmd /? Starts a new instance of the Windows 2000 command interpreter CMD [/A | /U] [/Q] [/D] [/E:ON | /E:OFF] [/F:ON | /F:OFF] [/V:ON | /V:OFF] [[/S] [/C | /K] string] And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread about whether IPv6 will ever take off. Cheers, Mathew
Re: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
Thus spake Matthew S. Hallacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. cmd.exe is a program which interprets MS-DOS commands. That doesn't mean it's DOS. btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference. Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier than typing start cmd from the DOS command prompt. cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M program image running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode. There's a big difference there. My PC can quack, but that doesn't mean it's a duck. I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people. Users do not read documentation. Presumably the final release of the IPv6 stack will be GUIfied like the IPv4 stack was. Microsoft is fortunately more concerned with getting their stack working than creating an idiot-proof installer for a beta product. S
RE: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
Stephen Sprunk wrote: SNIP cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M program image running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode. There's a big difference there. I am glad at least one other person knows the difference ;) (And probably anyone who did read the docs knows this) Users do not read documentation. But people reading NANOG should, at least I hope you do. And with all the nice and spiffy autoconfig in IPv6 a user shouldn't be reading nor has to read it either :) Presumably the final release of the IPv6 stack will be GUIfied like the IPv4 stack was. Microsoft is fortunately more concerned with getting their stack working than creating an idiot-proof installer for a beta product. Which is a good thing(tm) As for the on-topic part of this message I would like to point people at a very good presentation Steve Deering gave at isoc.nl a couple of months ago here in the Netherlands: Powerpoint: http://isoc.nl/activ/cursusmateriaal/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.ppt OpenOffice/StarOffice: http://isoc.nl/activ/cursusmateriaal/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.sxi It contains a basic IPv6 intro (which users could also read ;) and a has a nice deployment projection at the end of the slides. For people not wanting to take a looky at this presentation, the projection is: ~2003 Q4 Asia ~2004 Q4 Europe ~2006 Q2 America So you US folks should start doing something with IPv6 if we take these numbers into account. You are tagging behind europe for almost 18 months! (btw, Steve wrote this up and he is american, so no cross-continent wars please :) Greets, Jeroen
RE: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
You should be using cmd.exe under xp: C:\Documents and Settings\wintercmd /? Starts a new instance of the Windows XP command interpreter --Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6 On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:01:35AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: flame Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS? Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS. A thing like this: 8- Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp. C:\ -8 is called a Command Prompt and has nothing to do with DOS. Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ? It's shell everywhere then :) Pardon me: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter. COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:n] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG] [snip rest of output] Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. [snip] They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the development versions of the stack :) And everything has bugs As soon as it's in use enough for an exploit to be useful, it will be. /Flame [snip links] Don't forget http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/defa ult.asp Which instructs you to go to a command prompt, like I said =) And as for your it's difficult': http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.htmlforcepage=windows.html Or the single line: ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1 Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection uses Neighbor Discovery link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42 preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42, 2591593s/604393s (addrconf) Tada ;) Yes, this is too difficult for 'joe blow user', as I said. I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people. Users do not read documentation. Maybe also a nice tool for people saying but IPv4 has a GUI on windows you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your DOS prompt ;) If a user can't point, click, and go, they're unlikely to do something, I've dealt with people that went over a month without their internet access simply because they were afraid they would have to troubleshoot their internet connection over the phone. btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference. Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier than typing start cmd from the DOS command prompt. Greets, Jeroen -- Matthew S. HallacyFUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications; on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not settle for the movie starts every 15 minutes when they've been used to live VOD with unicast. The only saving grace may be things like TiVo, where an intelligent agent slurps up live mcasts in hopes that the user may want to watch it live later. I remember seeing a presentation about 3-4 years ago for techniques for doing on-demand stream sending. They assume multicast, sufficient buffer capacity on clients to hold the entire stream, and that clients have enough bandwidth to recieve, say, 1.2-3.5 streams at once. There are many techniques, but the basic idea is to 'merge' streams together... Say, for example, you have two multicast streams *.1 and *.2 *.1 is free and unused. *.2 is 2 minutes into a movie. A client makes a request at T=0, and subscribes to *.1 and *.2. *.1 sends the first 2 minutes of the movie then closes. The clients buffers *.2 during those 2 minutes to get minutes 2-4 of the movie. The client drops *.1 which is now free. Now, at T=2, the client is listening on *.2 giving it minutes 4-120 of the movie, and minutes 2-4 are buffered on its hard drive. Now, stream *.1 is free, and two clients are on stream *.2. Thats the idea, and it can be scaled up.. I think the presentation I saw claimed that where clients listen to at most 2 streams, and servers send out at most 8 streams, then the delay before starting a 2 hour movie can be 12 seconds, instead of 15 minutes. Some googling finds: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/zahorjan/homepage/ Which can be read or mined for references. Scott
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
an example of a on-demand reliable multicast transport application that you can deploy is: http://www.digital-fountain.com/technology/index.htm in part it employs them mechanism you describe. joelja On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications; on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not settle for the movie starts every 15 minutes when they've been used to live VOD with unicast. The only saving grace may be things like TiVo, where an intelligent agent slurps up live mcasts in hopes that the user may want to watch it live later. I remember seeing a presentation about 3-4 years ago for techniques for doing on-demand stream sending. They assume multicast, sufficient buffer capacity on clients to hold the entire stream, and that clients have enough bandwidth to recieve, say, 1.2-3.5 streams at once. There are many techniques, but the basic idea is to 'merge' streams together... Say, for example, you have two multicast streams *.1 and *.2 *.1 is free and unused. *.2 is 2 minutes into a movie. A client makes a request at T=0, and subscribes to *.1 and *.2. *.1 sends the first 2 minutes of the movie then closes. The clients buffers *.2 during those 2 minutes to get minutes 2-4 of the movie. The client drops *.1 which is now free. Now, at T=2, the client is listening on *.2 giving it minutes 4-120 of the movie, and minutes 2-4 are buffered on its hard drive. Now, stream *.1 is free, and two clients are on stream *.2. Thats the idea, and it can be scaled up.. I think the presentation I saw claimed that where clients listen to at most 2 streams, and servers send out at most 8 streams, then the delay before starting a 2 hour movie can be 12 seconds, instead of 15 minutes. Some googling finds: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/zahorjan/homepage/ Which can be read or mined for references. Scott -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
