Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On 4-okt-2007, at 17:50, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Hence uPnP and NAT-PMP plus about half a dozen protocols the IETF is working on. uPNP is moderately successful in the consumer space; it still doesn't work very well today, and it won't work at all in a few years when ISPs are forced to put consumers behind their own NAT boxes because they can't get any more v4 addresses. Please don't take my statement to be an endorsement of uPnP: it's a huge hack and has proven to be a security hole big enough to drive a truck full of NAT boxes through. My point is that in the consumer market, there has been a move to explicit hole punching rather than full reliance on ALGs. None of those protocols are being seriously considered by business folks. Business folks once ruled the internet but those days are over. The consumer is king. If the NAT/FW box can recognize a SIP call, or an active FTP transfer, or whatever and open the pinhole on its own, why is that a bad thing? The bad thing is when it doesn't work. For instance, when I let my Apple Extreme base station do NAT, RTSP (QuickTime streaming, although I think this defaults to HTTP these days, which sucks in its own way) works. But when I let my Cisco 826 do it, there is no RTSP ALG and it doesn't work. Since it's practically impossible for an end-user to add ALGs, this means that relying on them is russian roulette. You can get lucky at first, but nobody survives the sixth round. Decoding IPv4 packets on a host is trivial, they already have all the necessary code on board. It's building an IPv4 network that's a burden. Today, at least, it's less of a burden to build a NATed v4 network than it is to try to get v6 working end-to-end (with or without NAT). On the contrary. It's extremely simple: get IPv6-enabled ISPs on both ends, configure IPv6 on all routers on both sides, sprinkle with records and you're in business. Then ALL applications that work over IPv6 will work. No exceptions. With NAT you're forever chasing after the exceptions. Now of course getting those IPv6 ISPs may be hard/expensive/ impossible and running v6 on the routers may require replacing them, but those are simple practical issues that are irrelevant in the long term. One of the benefits of NAT-PT is all those legacy v4-only apps can stay exactly how they are (at least until the next regular upgrade, if any) and talk to v6 servers, or to other v4 servers across a v6- only network. No they can't. When I fire up pretty much any IM client when I'm running IPv6-only, it doesn't work, despite the presence of the necessary translation gear. Those apps simply cannot communicate over IPv6 sockets. You assume a model where some trusted party is in charge of a firewall that separates an untrustworthy outside and an untrustworthy inside. This isn't exactly the trust model for most consumer networks. Yes, it is. Or at least it should be. There is no trusted side of a firewall these days. Exactly: not the inside, not the outside, and also not the middle. As I said, in consumer installations, apps get to open up holes in NAT boxes so there is no protection from rogue applications running on internal hosts. Also, consumer networks are not the only relevant networks. There are arguably just as many hosts on enterprise networks, and the attitudes and practices of their admins (regardless of technical correctness) need to be considered. In such networks, it would be reasonable to expect that what happens on the hosts and what happens on the middleboxes is sufficiently coordinated that it presents something unified to the outside. This is different from the consumer space where random apps need to communicate across random home gateways.
RE: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the ball in a major way here in the United States, as well. We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is to backhaul IP packets from the site where DSL or cable lines are concentrated, into an ISP's PoP. This means that P2P packets between users at the same concentration site, are forced to trombone back and forth over the same congested circuits. And P2P is the main way to reduce the overall load that video places on the Internet. --Michael Dillon
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 5 21:16:57 2007 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
28-09-07238423 153006
29-09-07238787 152993
30-09-07238438 153326
01-10-07238525 153583
02-10-07238733 152252
03-10-07239049 152937
04-10-07239060 153386
05-10-07239308 153679
AS Summary
26480 Number of ASes in routing system
11173 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
1944 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS4538 : ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Network
Center
88942080 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721 : DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 05Oct07 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 239202 1536388556435.8% All ASes
AS4538 1944 708 123663.6% ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education
and Research Network Center
AS4755 1431 395 103672.4% VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. Autonomous System
AS9498 996 83 91391.7% BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET
LTD.
AS4323 1401 505 89664.0% TWTC - Time Warner Telecom,
Inc.
AS18566 1028 192 83681.3% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS11492 1153 358 79569.0% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE
AS6478 1124 368 75667.3% ATT-INTERNET3 - ATT WorldNet
Services
AS4134 1098 344 75468.7% CHINANET-BACKBONE
No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS8151 1055 423 63259.9% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS22773 789 206 58373.9% CCINET-2 - Cox Communications
Inc.
AS17488 824 276 54866.5% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
Cable Internet
AS18101 603 62 54189.7% RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd
Internet Data Centre,
AS15270 581 74 50787.3% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
AS7545 739 235 50468.2% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
Pty Ltd
AS6197 1032 542 49047.5% BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS7018 1497 1008 48932.7% ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet
Services
AS2386 1229 753 47638.7% INS-AS - ATT Data
Communications Services
AS19916 568 101 46782.2% ASTRUM-0001 - OLM LLC
AS4812 548 104 44481.0% CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom
(Group)
AS17676 502 63 43987.5% JPNIC-JP-ASN-BLOCK Japan
Network Information Center
AS4802 578 161 41772.1% ASN-IINET iiNet Limited
AS4766 809 412 39749.1% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS9443 476 82 39482.8% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
Telecommunications
AS4808 493 123 37075.1% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network
AS3602 435 79 35681.8% AS3602-RTI - Rogers Telecom
Inc.
AS4668 517 169 34867.3% LGNET-AS-KR LG CNS
AS16814 426 78 34881.7% NSS S.A.
AS7011 944 615 32934.9% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS -
Frontier Communications of
America, Inc.
AS577588 262 32655.4% BACOM - Bell Canada
AS16852 393 74 31981.2% BROADWING-FOCAL - Broadwing
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 03-Sep-07 -to- 04-Oct-07 (32 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS4538 1096426 2.3% 562.3 -- ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Network Center 2 - AS9583 750271 1.6% 642.9 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 3 - AS4323 524181 1.1% 365.5 -- TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 4 - AS22773 433482 0.9% 541.2 -- CCINET-2 - Cox Communications Inc. 5 - AS209387283 0.8% 499.7 -- ASN-QWEST - Qwest 6 - AS6197 373079 0.8% 359.1 -- BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc 7 - AS18101 360478 0.8% 580.5 -- RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet Data Centre, 8 - AS9498 358963 0.8% 351.2 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 9 - AS852350830 0.8% 582.8 -- ASN852 - Telus Advanced Communications 10 - AS6198 350193 0.8% 604.8 -- BATI-MIA - BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc 11 - AS4134 294691 0.6% 263.4 -- CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street 12 - AS4808 292683 0.6% 584.2 -- CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network 13 - AS5668 266040 0.6% 401.3 -- AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. 14 - AS19916 232245 0.5% 408.9 -- ASTRUM-0001 - OLM LLC 15 - AS11351 196972 0.4% 572.6 -- RR-NYSREGION-ASN-01 - Road Runner HoldCo LLC 16 - AS11139 189871 0.4% 475.9 -- CWRIN CW BARBADOS 17 - AS9929 189446 0.4% 513.4 -- CNCNET-CN China Netcom Corp. 18 - AS2907 184250 0.4% 563.5 -- ERX-SINET-AS National Center for Science Information Systems 19 - AS9800 174856 0.4% 596.8 -- UNICOM CHINA UNICOM 20 - AS6167 174700 0.4% 483.9 -- CELLCO-PART - Cellco Partnership TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS43403 84895 0.2% 42447.5 -- SVIAZ-PLUS-AS LLC Sviaz Plus 2 - AS10275 35475 0.1% 17737.5 -- AS-UNITEDNETWORK - ABS-CBN International 3 - AS26829 12825 0.0% 12825.0 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC 4 - AS175406357 0.0%6357.0 -- MTL-AP Modern Terminals Limited 5 - AS36011 11966 0.0%5983.0 -- AHSYS-ASN - Atlantic Health System 6 - AS926417311 0.0%5770.3 -- ASNET Academic Sinica 7 - AS343824924 0.0%4924.0 -- ASSYRUS-SRL-AS Assyrus Srl Maintainer 8 - AS30707 13164 0.0%4388.0 -- 9 - AS426113542 0.0%3542.0 -- HOSTUA-AS hosing.com.ua AS 10 - AS326503341 0.0%3341.0 -- SANDHILLS-SW - SANDHILLS PUBLISHING 11 - AS246976559 0.0%3279.5 -- SATURN-ASN Saturn ISP AS 12 - AS30619 59479 0.1%2973.9 -- TDM-AS 13 - AS34770 18380 0.0%2625.7 -- ELITSAT-AS Elit SAT AD - Rousse 14 - AS287337877 0.0%2625.7 -- AVIGAL-AS IT master LLC 15 - AS200072333 0.0%2333.0 -- AS-ALOGI - ALOGIENT INC. 16 - AS163122293 0.0%2293.0 -- ASN-ZWEITWERK # AS-ZWEITWERK CONVERTED TO ASN-ZWEITWERK FOR RPSL COMPLIANCE Zweitwerk GmbH Co KG 17 - AS39396 13242 0.0%2207.0 -- NBIS-AS NBI Systems Ltd. 18 - AS319491781 0.0%1781.0 -- APEXDIGITAL - Apex Digital 19 - AS34368 62409 0.1%1733.6 -- THEZONE Zonata - Natzkovi Sie LTD. 20 - AS270931701 0.0%1701.0 -- DDN-ASNBLK1 - DoD Network Information Center TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 202.56.250.0/24 57020 0.1% AS9498 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 2 - 203.101.87.0/24 56665 0.1% AS9498 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 3 - 210.18.10.0/2449954 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 4 - 221.135.22.0/24 48206 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 5 - 193.46.60.0/2447798 0.1% AS43403 -- SVIAZ-PLUS-AS LLC Sviaz Plus 6 - 221.135.113.0/24 46570 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 7 - 209.163.125.0/24 38034 0.1% AS14390 -- CORENET - Coretel America, Inc. 8 - 91.194.244.0/24 37097 0.1% AS43403 -- SVIAZ-PLUS-AS LLC Sviaz Plus 9 - 210.214.173.0/24 36431 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 10 - 210.214.177.0/24 36426 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 11 - 210.214.221.0/24 36306 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 12 - 210.214.210.0/24 36223 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 13 - 210.214.220.0/24 36200 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 14 - 210.214.211.0/24 36115 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 15 - 210.214.172.0/24 35869 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 16 - 221.135.77.0/24 8 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 17 - 80.243.64.0/2030740 0.1% AS21332 -- NTC-AS New Telephone Company 18 - 192.96.14.0/24
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the ball in a major way here in the United States, as well. We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is to backhaul IP packets from the site where DSL or cable lines are concentrated, into an ISP's PoP. This means that P2P packets between users at the same concentration site, are forced to trombone back and forth over the same congested circuits. And P2P is the main way to reduce the overall load that video places on the Internet. Hm, Australia is pretty much that exact architecture. Adrian
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On 10/5/07 5:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the ball in a major way here in the United States, as well. We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is to backhaul IP packets from the site where DSL or cable lines are concentrated, into an ISP's PoP. This means that P2P packets between users at the same concentration site, are forced to trombone back and forth over the same congested circuits. And P2P is the main way to reduce the overall load that video places on the Internet. Michael - I don't think this is the case for most NA cable operators. P2P between subscribers in the same general area simply hairpins back over the HFC from the aggregation hub (location of the CMTS), no unnecessary backhaul to another distant PoP location. Now, the rest of the traffic will be aggregated further up on its way towards upstream peering...but that is a different traffic flow. -ron This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin
Justin Wilson wrote: We've been having trouble sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Getting the infamous 421 Message from (x.x.x.x) temporarily deferred - 4.16.50. Please refer to http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-06.html. I've actually had quite a bit of success with Yahoo. They're slow in replying so you have to know what to ask for. Ask them to add you to their white-list. Once the techs respond, they'll send you a long questionnaire about your mail servers, management practices, and company policies. Fill it out and mail it back to them. You'll be put on a two week monitoring period where they'll monitor e-mails coming from your servers. At the end of the two weeks, they'll approve you if you are legit. Just grin and bear it. Include all relevant information in *every* e-mail you send them. You'll most likely talk to someone new every time. If you're patient and craft well-worded e-mails, you should be on their white-list in about three or four weeks. I did exactly this and so far the yahoo mail servers haven't been too troublesome. They slow down the connections sometimes, but it usually goes through after an hour or two. -Chris
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:35:33 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said: Business folks once ruled the internet but those days are over. The consumer is king. Given yesterday's RIAA victory in their lawsuit in Minnesota, I expect the RIAA will start lobbying for more ways to easily identify the individual users/computers - the easiest way to do *that*, of course, is to give each computer a truly unique address rather than allow some unknown number of authorized and freeloading computers to all hide behind one NAT on a wireless cable/DSL modem. I predict this will finally be the Killer App that IPv6 has been waiting for. :) pgpxbO7dhhhJe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Now, ISP economics pretty much require that some amount of overcommit will happen. However, if you have a 12GB quota, that works out to around 36 kilobits/sec average. Assuming the ISP is selling 10Mbps connections (and bearing in mind that ADSL2 can certainly go more than that), what that's saying is that the average user can use 1/278th of their connection. I would imagine that the overcommit rate is much higher than that. I don't think that things should be measured like this. Throughput != bandwidth. No, but it gives some rational way to look at it, as long as we all realize what we're talking about. The other ways I've seen it discussed mostly involve a lot of handwaving. Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they exceed it. And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? Think very carefully about that before you answer. If it was arranged that every customer of the ISP in question were to go to 100% utilization downloading 12G on the first of the month at 12:01AM, it seems clear to me that you could really screw up 95th. Note: I'm assuming the quota is monthly, as it seems to be for most AU ISP's I've looked at, for example: Yes most are monthly based on GB. capacity is being stifled by ISP's that are stuck back in speeds (and policies) appropriate for the year 2000. Imagine a case (even in the largest of ISP's), where there are no quotas, and everyone has a 10Mbps connection. I'm imagining it. I've already stated that it's a problem. I don't think there is an ISP in existence that has the infrastructure capacity to carry all of their clients using all of the connections simultaneously at full speed for long extended periods. I'll go so far as to say that there's no real ISP in existence that could support it for any period. As bandwidth and throughput increases, so does the strain on the networks that are upstream from the client. Obviously. Unless someone pays for the continuously growing data transfers, then your 6Mbps ADSL connection is fantastic, until you transit across the ISP's network who can't afford to upgrade the infrastructure because clients think they are being ripped off for paying 'extra'. Now, at your $34/month for your resi ADSL connection, the clients call the ISP and complain about slow speeds, but when you advise that they have downloaded 90GB of movies last month and they must pay for it, they wont. Everyone wants it cheaper and cheaper, but yet expect things to work 100% of the time, and at 100% at maximum advertised capacity. My favorites are the clients who call the helpdesk and state I'm trying to run a business here (on their residential ADSL connection). 90GB/mo is still a relatively small amount of bandwidth. That works out to around a quarter of a megabit on average. This is nowhere near the 100% situation you're discussing. And it's also a lot higher than the 12GB/mo quota under discussion. What are we missing out on because ISP's are more interested in keeping bandwidth use low? I don't think anyone wants to keep bandwidth use low, it's just in order to continue to allow bandwidth consumption to grow, someone needs to pay for it. How about the ISP? Surely their costs are going down. Certainly I know that our wholesale bandwidth costs have dropped orders of magnitude in the last ~decade or so. Equipment does occasionally need to be replaced. I've got a nice pair of Ascend GRF400's out in the garage that cost $65K- $80K each when originally purchased. They'd be lucky to pull any number of dollars these days. It's a planned expense. As for physical plant, I'd imagine that a large amount of that is also a planned expense, and is being paid down (or already paid off), so arguing that this is somewhere that a lot of extra expense will exist is probably silly too. What fantastic new technologies haven't been developed because they were deemed impractical given the state of the Internet? Backbone connections worth $34/month, and infrastructure gear that upgrades itself at no cost. Hint: that money you're collecting from your customers isn't all profit. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the ball in a major way here in the United States, as well. We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is to backhaul IP packets from the site where DSL or cable lines are concentrated, into an ISP's PoP. This means that P2P packets between users at the same concentration site, are forced to trombone back and forth over the same congested circuits. This would seem to primarily be an issue /due/ to congestion of those circuits. The current solution, as you suggest, is not ideal, but it isn't necessarily clear that a solution to this will be better. Let's look at an infrastructure that would be representative of what often happens here in Milwaukee. ATT provides copper DSL wholesale services to an ISP. This means that a packet goes from the residence to the local CO, where ATT aggregates over its network to a ATM circuit that winds up at an ISP POP. Then, to get to a DSL customer with actual ATT service, the packets go down to Chicago, over transit to ATT, and then back up to Milwaukee... Getting the ISP to have equipment colocated at the point where DSL lines are concentrated would certainly help for the case where packets where transiting from one neighborhood customer of an ISP to another neighborhood customer of an ISP, but in the common case, it isn't clear to me that the payoff would be significant. Getting all the ISP's to peer with each other at the DSL concentration point would solve the problem, but again, the question is how significant that payoff would be. It would seem like a larger payoff to simply make sure sufficient capacity existed to move packets as required, since this not only solves the local packet problem you suggest, but the more general overall problem that ISP's face. And P2P is the main way to ^currently reduce the overall load that video places on the Internet. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:42:05 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said: Except if you are using privacy enhanced ipv6 addresses a la RFC 3041 Which is more likely: 1) The RIAA successfully lobbies for a network that basically prohibits rfc3041. 2) The consumers successfully lobby for a network that permits/requires rfc3041. (My point was that at least in the US, the consumer is king mantra has been a crock for several years - witness the incredible range and speeds of our broadband choices, the whole net neutrality thing. If forced into a choice between what the RIAA wants and what consumers want, I think we know what most last-mile providers are going to do.) pgpXPLwlSFRqV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, Joe Greco wrote: Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they exceed it. And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? No, its that they've run the numbers and found the users above 12G/month are using a significant fraction of their network capacity for whatever values of signficant and fraction you define. Adrian
RE: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Joe Greco wrote: Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they exceed it. And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? Think very carefully about that before you answer. If it was arranged that every customer of the ISP in question were to go to 100% utilization downloading 12G on the first of the month at 12:01AM, it seems clear to me that you could really screw up 95th. First, the total transfer vs. 95%ile issue. I would imagine that's just a matter of keeping it simple. John Q. Broadbanduser can understand the concept of total transfer. But try explaining 95%ile to him. Or for that matter, try explaining it to the average billing wonk at your average residential ISP. As far as the 12GB cap goes, I guess it would depend on the particular economics of the ISP in question. 12GB for a small ISP in a bandwidth-starved country isn't as insignificant as you make it sound. But lets look at your more realistic second whatif: 90GB/mo is still a relatively small amount of bandwidth. That works out to around a quarter of a megabit on average. This is nowhere near the 100% situation you're discussing. And it's also a lot higher than the 12GB/mo quota under discussion. As you say, 90GB is roughly .25Mbps on average. Of course, like you pointed out, the users actual bandwidth patterns are most likely not a straight line. 95%ile on that 90GB could be considerably higher. But let's take a conservative estimate and say that user uses .5Mbps 95%ile. And lets say this is a relatively large ISP paying $12/Mb. That user then costs that ISP $6/month in bandwidth. (I know, that's somewhat faulty logic, but how else is the ISP going to establish a cost basis?) If that user is only paying say $19.99/month for their connection, that leaves only $13.99 a month to pay for all the infrastructure to support that user, along with personnel, etc all while still trying to turn a profit. In those terms, it seems like a pretty reasonable level of service for the price. If that same user were to go direct to a carrier, they couldn't get .5Mbps for anywhere near that cost, even ignoring the cost of the last-mile local loop. And for that same price they're also probably getting email services with spam and virus filtering, 24-hr. phone support, probably a bit of web hosting space, and possibly even a backup dial-up connection. Andrew
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Hex Star wrote: Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP? In the UK there is a very good reason - BT, see this write up: http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adsl_cost.htm J -- COO Entanet International T: 0870 770 9580 W: http://www.enta.net/ L: http://tinyurl.com/3bxqez
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:56:48 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said: controller can force enable/disable. I don't see how RIAA can lobby for switching off privacy enhancement - disabling certain component of the operating system?. Consider the fact that they lobbied *and got* 17 USC 512 takedowns, and the DMCA anti-circumvention clause. Still don't see how they could lobby for it? pgprVMfdUM4r3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, Joe Greco wrote: Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they exceed it. And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? No, its that they've run the numbers and found the users above 12G/month are using a significant fraction of their network capacity for whatever values of signficant and fraction you define. Of course, that's obvious. The point here is that if your business is so fragile that you can only deliver each broadband customer a dialup modem's worth of bandwidth, something's wrong with your business. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Establish Peer Relationship with Comcast
Hello all, I was wondering if anyone on the list works for Comcast or could help me get in touch with them to discuss the requirements for establishing a peering relationship. So far our efforts to contact them have not resulted in talking to anyone except folks who can sell me a cable-modem circuit :). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail me off-list at darin _at_ peznet.net Thanks, Darin
Re: Establish Peer Relationship with Comcast
On 10/5/07, Darin Pesnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, I was wondering if anyone on the list works for Comcast or could help me get in touch with them to discuss the requirements for establishing a peering relationship. So far our efforts to contact them have not resulted in talking to anyone except folks who can sell me a cable-modem circuit :). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail me off-list at darin _at_ peznet.net Darin, Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] -M
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:12:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you say, 90GB is roughly .25Mbps on average. Of course, like you pointed out, the users actual bandwidth patterns are most likely not a straight line. 95%ile on that 90GB could be considerably higher. But let's take a conservative estimate and say that user uses .5Mbps 95%ile. And lets say this is a relatively large ISP paying $12/Mb. That user then costs that ISP $6/month in bandwidth. (I know, that's somewhat faulty logic, but how else is the ISP going to establish a cost basis?) If that user is only paying say $19.99/month for their connection, that leaves only $13.99 a month to pay for all the infrastructure to support that user, along with personnel, etc all while still trying to turn a profit. In the Australian ISP's case (which is what started this) it's rather worse. The local telco monopoly bills between $30 and $50 per month for access to the copper tail. So there's essentially no such thing as a $19.99/month connection here (except for short-lived flash-in-the-pan loss-leaders, and we all know how they turn out) So to run the numbers: A customer who averages .25Mbit/sec on a tail acquired from the incumbent requires -- Port/line rental from the telco ~ $50 IP transit~ $ 6 (your number) Transpacific backhaul ~ $50 (I'm not making this up) So we're over a hundred bucks already, and haven't yet factored in the overheads for infrastructure, personnel, profit, etc. And those numbers are before sales tax too, so add at least 10% to all of them before arriving at a retail price. Due to the presence of a quota, our customers don't tend to average .25 Mbit/sec over the course of a month (we prefer to send the ones that do to our competitors :-). If someone buys access to, say, 30 Gbytes of downloads per month, a few significant things happen: - The customer has a clear understanding of what they've paid for, which doesn't encompass unlimited access to the Internet. That tends to moderate their usage; - Because they know they're buying something finite, they tend to pick a package that suits their expected usage, so customers who intend to use more end up paying more money; - The customer creates their own backpressure against hitting their quota: Once they've gone past it they're usually rate-limited to 64kbps, which is not a nice experience, so by and large they build in a safety margin and rarely use more than 75% of the quota. About 5% of our customers blow their quota in any given month; - The ones who do hit their quota and don't like 64kbps shaping get to pay us more money to have their quota expanded for the rest of the month, thereby financing the capacity upgrades that their cumulative load can/will require; - The entire Australian marketplace is conditioned to expect that kind of behaviour from ISPs, and doesn't consider it to be unusual. If you guys in North America tried to run like this, you'd be destroyed in the marketplace because you've created a customer base that expects to be able to download the entire Internet and burn it to DVD every month. :-) So you end up looking at options like DPI and QoS controls at your CMTS head-end to moderate usage, because you can't keep adding infinite amounts of bandwidth to support unconstrained end-users when they're only paying you $20 per month. (note that our truth-in-advertising regulator doesn't allow us to get away with saying Unlimited unless there really are no limits -- no quotas, no traffic shaping, no traffic management, no QoS controls. Unlimited means unlimited by the dictionary definition, not by some weasel definition that the industry has invented to suit its own purposes) - There is no net neutrality debate to speak of in .au because everyone is _already_ paying their way. Like I said a few messages ago, as much as your marketplace derides caps and quotas, I'm pretty sure that most of you would prefer to do business with my constraints than with yours. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
