Re: Postmaster @ vtext.com (or what are best practice to send SMS these days)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have one of these babies http://www.multitech.com/PRODUCTS/Families/MultiModemCDMA/ with SMS Server Tools 3 running (hacked up for CDMA, cuz they dont' support CDMA out of the box) $40 a month does the trick There was a good thread about sms notifications not so long time ago. Here is what the summary was: On Fri, Sep 7, 2007 at 6:54 PM, Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an experiment, I wanted to try to summarize all the answers given on this question, hope this helps someone. Suggestions given: * modem and TAP gateway ** TAP numbers at http://www.avtech.com/Support/TAP/index.htm ** Software: sendpage or qpage * Mobile phone with a serial port and AT commandset ** Software: sms-tools gnokii gsmd ** Issues: not reliable because of battery drain * Purpose-made GSM/CDMA modems ** Software: same as above ** Manufacturers: Intercel, Sierra 750 (PCMCIA), Falcom Samba 75 (USB) * Purpose-made GSM-IP modems ** Manufacturers: http://www.acmesystems.it/?id=70 * Pages via DTMF ** Hylafax/asterisk - -alex [for mlc] - -- Andrey Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkgGOL0ACgkQYovzGDqdwI/CTQCffgfxf55JhSyoekqGc9LxyAEY AaIAn2A0erUkl6WdWrtOgIaZCi6HZj1F =HYjO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
This is Gary Kremen owner of SEX dot com.cohen stole sex.com from kremen and kremen sued and got it back - it looks like he is trying to force arin to give him cohen's IP assignments sounds like a grudge match - but it is a shame that he might do arin collateral damage =The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) Back Issues: http://www.cookreport.com/browse_past_free2.shtml Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog http://gordoncook.net/wp/ Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml= On Sep 8, 2006, at 5:36 AM, tony sarendal wrote: Interesting read. http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf#search=%22kremen%20vs%20arin%22I found this little gem in the "The Internet, IP addresses and Domain Names" section: --- Recently a new form of Internet addressing has emerged, called Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). In this new addressing protocol, a CIDR network address could look like this: 193.30.250.00/21. The prefix is the address of the network, or gateway, and the number after the slash indicates the size of the network. The higher the number, the more host space that is in the network(2). ... --- (2) later contradicts this statement. Maybe I should sell them some /32's, or why not a few /128's. Or maybe I just have too much time on my hands. /Tony On 08/09/06, Chris Jester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest caseregarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the wayIP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would loveto know if this is true or not. Anyone with negative ARIN experiencesthat relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks!For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARINhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=1 Or google for Kremen VS ArinChris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506Chris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential andare only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any waywhatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test theinformation provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente,INC.does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of theindividual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Suavemente, INC. -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: Reporting to God
very interesting suresh. I read it and it does provide confirmations from my point of view on some things that I had only suspected. The most significant was that IBM and ATT were the corps that had gotten their hooks into Magaziner This happened between sept and december 1996. That action had other IMPORTANT fall out - namely it cancelled the very carefully laid plans of the NSF to declare the network solutions cooperative agreement done a year early. had that happened the feds would have lost whatever control they had. (I published an issue on april 1, 1997 saying what the feds had done to the NSF. I got email congratulating me on a brilliant april fools day issue. Unfortunately it was true and not an april fools day joke.) Maher is also dead wrong on his insinuations about the NSF doing backroom deals with SAIC and the USF gov't on charging for domain names. I don't like SAIC any more than Maher but again I have documented from the direct sources involved at NSF that they could not have done otherwise than what they did. A Maher does lift the curtain on what his trademark folk did and that is useful - confirming a bunch of what a lot of use who were not in THOSE rooms suspected. I hear that ken cukier is working on a definitive history of this - it needs to be written for sure. the consequences of what happened a decade ago have not yet fully played out and there was a lot more going on than just trademark. The most important thing from my point of view to the kuallumpur meeting that maher mentions is that ARIN was announced to the world by jon postel. Magaziner had hammered THAT out at a meeting of the FNC in washington a couple of weeks earlier. anyway i have other things to do that rehash old history - but thanks for pointing this out. Maher does offer an interesting perspective that makes sense (from his point of view at least.) = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Exploring Role of Networks in Global Economy 200 Billion LEC Scandal at: http://cookreport.com/15.01.shtml = On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: This is from the ITU newslog .. The Economist once said: if the Net does have a God, he is probably Jon Postel. David Maher, Senior Vice President, Law and Policy at PIR has published his memoirs of the early day attempts to revamp the internet's domain name system, which he has entitled Reporting to God. Ten years later, it appears that decisions surrounding the DNS remain as equally controversial as in the mid-1990's. The Dave Maher memoirs are at http://chilit.org/Papers%20by%20author/Maher%20--%20Reporting%20to% 20God.htm Also links to an old, deja vu inducing Economist article, posted on the IP list - http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/ interesting-people/199702/msg1.html -srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: the future of the net
I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very good very rich ...filled with links and yeah now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy
Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap - worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in past. Think about what you are saying: Something to consider about this proposed regulation... It is actually in many ways proposed deregulation Yes it is indeed. It frees the duopoly to do whatever it wants. And Whittacre has said what he wants and what he will do quite plainly -- has he not? He will charge google and yahoo and skype for using his networks. Here is how this legislation is being read in London at a public telco blog recently launched by DRKW the large investment bank: http://telcotech.drkw.com/blog/archives/2005/11/will_evil_preva.html For all of our sakes lets hope that the telcos are not successful in their lobbying effort in the US. If they are successful, you can bet that your investment in the fixed telecoms utilities is safer but innovation on the internet is in jeopardy - which do you think creates more incremental future value in the world ultimately? Vint Cerf is on my economics of IP networks private mail list. The DRKW blog post partially cited above came in part from a public item comment of Vint's that i posted day before yesterday to my private list. It is fascinating that Sean Donelan whom I have known and respected since 1991 dug that 1997 item quote from Vint from my archives. Donelan: In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI. http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml COOK Report: Recall the date. This is PRE stupid network and again VINT is taking the pre-internet pre stupid network telco point of view. I'll post this to my list and see if Vint has anything that he wants to say about this 8 year old opinion. Owen, do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO much worse. But don't take my word for it - check out DRKW's analyst's opinion. Fred Goldstein also has a pretty good analysis. I probably will not further respond to this thread discussion. Please forgive me but I am swamped with many things that demand attention. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Something to consider about this proposed regulation... It is actually in many ways proposed deregulation. This bill removes more authority from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It provides a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and a couple of other minor consumer protections, says The government shall butt the hell out. That's why I like it. But Owen - what if getting evil gov't out gives Whittacre a blank check? Owen
Fwd: [Arch-econ] Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is being quoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill
thank you Vint.folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago.Please note also Vint's remark:If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear. =The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscriptioninfo: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml= Begin forwarded message:From: "Vint Cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: November 11, 2005 10:10:40 AM ESTTo: "'economics of ip networks'"Subject: Re:Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality billReply-To: economics of ip networks Gordon, today, you are typically charged based on the maximum capacity of the access circuit you "purchase" - that's flat rate. At the time (8 years ago) people wanted to have the burst rate but didn't want to pay for the unused capacity so we instituted a tiered pricing system that allowed them, e.g., to burst at 45 Mb/s but only pay for the effectively used capacity. As I recall, we used something like the 95th percentile as a measurement of capacity used - in other words, you paid for that capacity below which 95% of all sampled rates fell. I don't recall all the details but there may have been a fixed/variable structure. A fixed amount for having access to burst capacity of a certain size and a variable amount depending on average rate. the implication is that if you purchased a burst T1 and used half on the average you might pay less than if you purchased burst T3 and used only a half T1's worth. The somewhat higher charge would be a consequence of having access to a higher absolute rate/capacity. This idea may still have legs today although as speeds increase, and prices fall, it may not be nearly the same issue as it was eight years ago. You might ask MCI and other ISPs what their pricing structures are today for some perspective. I do not see that tiered pricing is a neutrality threat. Neutrality has to do with differentiation with regard to the actual content carried (or service provided). If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality. One might think of the notion of neutrality as the 21st C version of common carriage although I hesitate to draw the comparison if only because of the complex way in which "common carriage" concept and rules have evolved. vint Vinton G Cerf Chief Internet Evangelist Google/Regus Herndon, VA 20171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.google.com From: On Behalf Of Gordon CookSent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:40 AMTo: economics of ip networksSubject: Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill Any comments? Any comments from anyone? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill] Date: November 11, 2005 12:58:40 AM EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: oops ;) my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X speed, it was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long bandwidth but price alone. In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI. http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml Although MCI has not yet made a formal announcement via a press release, Cerf explained that "we are plainly discussing this with you, Gordon, and your readers." The MCI move is the outcome of what Cerf describes as a crunch between the Internet's flat rate pricing model and usage patterns where both the amount of use and disparity between use by applications has increased dramatically. Will consumers prefer to pay higher flat rate charges for everything, or prefer different pricing models when they access applications which require dramatically different service levels to include the cost as part of an application specific fee?Begin forwarded message: From: Gordon Cook [EMAIL PR
Re: [Arch-econ] Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is being quoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill
Blaine: This is about all I can offer under the circumstances. It is from page 45 of my nov-dec issue published about sept 30. you do ask a Reasonable question. === From Brett Glass on September 17 via Dave Farber’s IP List - Here it comes: Regulation of the Internet and ISPs Here’s some information on the broadband bill that’s about to pass out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A bag of goodies for the reconsolidating Baby Bells, it has lots of implications for independent ISPs and WISPs -- not all of them good. For example, it requires all broadband ISPs to register with the FCC and allows the FCC to deny the application and prohibit it from offering service. Yes, that’s right, folks; if this bill goes through, you must say, “Mother, May I?” to be an ISP. It also requires all VoIP providers to ask government permission to offer VoIP. It also mandates E-911 services for VoIP, thus disadvantaging independent VoIP providers. And it requires that VoIP providers be able to provide geographic information about callers (which implies, in turn, the ability to determine the physical location of any Internet user). So much for privacy or anonymity on the Internet! Other provisions (it’s a long, meaty bill) would likely give the cable/ILEC duopoly major advantages over independent ISPs and WISPs. Below is a Washington Post article on the bill, followed by a press release from the Committee, followed by links to a brief analysis and the text of the bill itself. Draft Legislation Aims To Aid Competition In Broadband Services By Arshad Mohammed Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 16, 2005; D02 A key House committee released draft legislation yesterday requiring broadband providers to allow their subscribers to view any legal online content, a policy aimed at keeping big Internet companies from restricting access to competitors’ Web offerings. The House Energy and Commerce Committee draft is a victory for advocates of “net neutrality” -- the idea that Internet providers have to stand aside and allow customers to access any Web pages as long as the content is legal. The principle is considered crucial to preserving the open nature of the Internet and preventing big broadband providers from squeezing out smaller competitors that offer voice, video or other services. Another provision in the proposed law also makes it easier for telephone companies to offer television over high-speed lines. It seeks to free cable and telephone companies from having to negotiate video franchises with numerous local authorities around the country, instead giving the Federal Communications Commission more authority over the process. That would largely benefit the major telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc., SBC Communications Corp. and BellSouth Corp., which hope to offer television over fiber-optic lines. Yesterday, officials at those companies reacted favorably to the legislation. Other aspects of the draft legislation are aimed at making sure cable and telephone companies get equivalent regulatory treatment as they offer broadband Internet access. The draft is a first salvo from the committee, which is led by Texas Republican Joe Barton, in what is likely to be a lengthy battle in Congress over any rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2005/09/15/AR2005091502257.html Cook on November 11 There is more but I REALLY need to bow out now that Vin't has given a current point of view. I would certainly trust Brett Glass on this as well as David Isenberg and Fred Goldstein to name a few = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Blaine Christian wrote: On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gordon Cook wrote: thank you Vint. folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago. Please note also Vint's remark: If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality. I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us
Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at the edge and networks that are less subject to failure, the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies. Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber. Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad. How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted. How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand they better build their own infrastructure. because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholder...never mind the public at large? = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is New Wealth Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml = On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote: All, Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/ATT and VZ/MCI will be to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in order to allow for the obligatory synergies and resulting savings to kick in. In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that business continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee- well, where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to concentration of powers? While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of places, it is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However, the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon, SBC, MCI/MFS and ATT/TCG, such differentiations are still possible. Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once integration is completed users will find themselves riding over systems that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set of NMS constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher levels in the stack. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Eight or nine people I had talked to thought they had geographically distinct ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable when the second cut took it down hard. Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into their contracts? Or was this type of service good enough? --Michael Dillon
Re: Cisco IOS Exploit Cover Up
and talk about closing the barn door after the horse has escaped!?? Haven't they just turned those 15 pages scanned as a pdf and distributed over a p2p file sharing system like bit torrent into likely one of the the most sought after documents on the planet? How long before they show up there? If they aren't there already. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: The Only Sustainable Edge vs The Oligopoly at: http://cookreport.com/14.06.shtml = On Jul 27, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: ...and Wired News is running this story: Cisco Security Hole a Whopper Excerpt: [snip] A bug discovered in an operating system that runs the majority of the world's computer networks would, if exploited, allow an attacker to bring down the nation's critical infrastructure, a computer security researcher said Wednesday against threat of a lawsuit. Michael Lynn, a former research analyst with Internet Security Solutions, quit his job at ISS Tuesday morning before disclosing the flaw at Black Hat Briefings, a conference for computer security professionals held annually here. [snip] http://www.wired.com//privacy/0,1848,68328,00.html - ferg -- Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what ot's worth, this story is running in the popular trade press: Cisco nixes conference session on hacking IOS router code http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/072705-cisco-ios.html - ferg -- Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those who like to keep abreast of security issues, there are interesting developments happening at BlackHat with regards to Cisco IOS and its vulnerability to arbitrary code executions. I apologize for the article itself being brief and lean on technical details, but allow me to say that it does represent a real problem (as in practical and confirmed): http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/07/mending_a_ hole_.html Yes, practical _and_ confirmed, but you'll never get $vendor to admit it, which is the problem to begin with. -M -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Auerbach Accuses ICANN Board of Dereliction of Duty on IP Allocation
...and hilarity ensued. Not. http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml - ferg Sigh. I am certainly not happy to see this and I must confess dismay that the subject rears its ugly head. My life has been better since i stopped paying attention to these people hoping that they would sink beneath the surface of the sea. I looked at the Cave Bear blog and saw nothing there that offered any kind of concise clear picture of WHAT their proposed allocation policy was and why it was bad. Does someone have a good succinct write up? If so please send me a pointer off list and i will do my best to get the word out to the folk I reach. But yeah if you control the IP numbers you have the net by the jugular. Vint Cerf sat at a table for 4 with IBM lobbyist Mike Nelson at dinner on march 30 at David Isenberg's F2C meeting and then got up and gave a very nice talk on P2P technology and extolled this as being the best and most existing stuff happening on the net these days and then THIS? whatever THIS is? And of course i don't know ANY specifics. But there is enough bum news rumbling around not to have to add this on top of everything else. But again before one starts to yell - just what is it that they want to do and precisely why is it bad? Two thousand words max please - preferably 500 words. pointer please. Off list. One other question here - is there anything being talked about that could take ICANN in the direction of approving routing for critical transactions? I hope not. On a different subject for those who have been playing with Skype have a look at http://cookreport.com/14.03.shtml and enjoy. -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Telephones Become Software Phones Computers - Skype VoIP at: http://cookreport.com/14.03.shtml =
An Optical Revolution may be Undermining Carrier Viability
Here is an abstract of a study I have just completed. Enjoy. Optical Revolution Increases Obsolescence of Legacy Carrier Networks Highly Efficient Layer One and Two Optical Networks Will Spell End of the Road for ATT, Sprint MCI in Their Current Form Intelligent Acquisition Could Lead to Quick Write Offs of Obsolete Equipment Result in Modernization of Telco Infrastructure An examination of the infrastructure of the Leading optical research networks (SURFnet 6, CA*Net4, and TransLight) shows that we may well be headed towards optical networks owned, built, and operated by enterprises and other large entities that are sources of, and/or, sinks for data, with the public Internet and carrier backbone networks merely acting as inter-connecting vehicles for private bit carriage. We examine the emergence of new enterprise-owned and -operated networks. These will be composed of hybrid networks that, for certain Quality of Service and security-mandated applications set up lightpaths, when needed, and then tear them down. Best-effort Layer 3 IP services for email and web browsing will utilize a separate allocation of bandwidth elsewhere within the optical spectrum of physical glass. This new enterprise-owned optical network is likely to be one that could switch lightpaths back and forth on an as-needed basis sending payloads over dedicated lightpaths where appropriate and needed, while best-effort routing continues to function on its own over intranet or Internet routes, thus filling in the gaps between highly mission-critical and business-as-usual applications. For independent verification of our basic conclusions see Dark fiber: Businesses see the light. http://news.com.com/Dark+fiber+Businesses+see+the+light/2100-1037_3-5557910.html?tag=nefd.lede For complete Introduction and Executive Summary and Table of contents see http://cookreport.com/14.01.shtml -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Optical Research Net- works and an Enterprise Networks Revolution at: http://cookreport.com/14.01.shtml =
Re: Measure overall network availability
Joe Shen wrote: Hi, is there any recommended method to measure overall network availability? Currently we use packet loss rate as indication of network availability, but to my understanding this just means the possiblity of e2e communication degrade but not the network availability. Cisco's SAA and RTTMON mibs could provide you with some details pertaining to Delay, Jitter, and Packet Loss on Cisco devices. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk869/tk769/technologies_white_paper09186a00801b1a1e.shtml -Gordon regards Joe
Re: Public Interest Networks (try UCLP)
Hi Deepak and Vicky, I can't resist comment even though at this point the additional questions that i can answer are very limited. For the past month I have been talking privately and more recently on a private mail list with folk at the heart of this. Canarie under Bill St Arnaud has been the global leader for more than the past five years. Tom Defanti and Joe Mambretti in chicago with the start tap and star light exchanges have been before National lambda rail (NRL) the main players in the US. NRL is perceived as quite important in that it will permit american universities to experiment with their own fiber and wavelength as the canadians have been with CA*Net4 for years. In Europe Kees neggers with Surfnet6 is doing the same thing. As I understand it Internet 2 and Dante/Geant in europe are primarily carrier dependent and therefore for the most part onlookers. NLR, Surfnet6, Ca*Net4 are or will be experimenting with User controlled light paths (UCLP). For more put UCLP in google. I interviewed Bill St Arnaud 2 weeks ago on UCLP. Here one of the purposes is to enable users at the edge to make connection oriented links between each other WITHOUT A CARRIER IN THE MIDDLE by partitioning a segment of a switch or switches between them. The concept is peer to peer and ad hoc. the goal is enabling customer owned and operated networks. As one of the players said on November 15th: UCLP is simply a layer 1 provisioning and configuration tool. Although we use lightpaths it is not restricted to optical networks. Although it seems paradoxical I am not a big believer in AON, ASON or optical networking in general. I think the big benefit of DWDM networks will be to increase the richness of meshing of IP networks and to allow new business models of IP networking to evolve e.g customer owned and managed IP networks. Web services is being used to set up the lightpaths. If there is sonet underneath the folk with access to webservices can groom the light path from a ds3 on up and with further software development can groom less than a ds3. This stuff is not yet well understood outside these research network circles. I believe that it is hugely important and I will be devoting most of my time in december and january to explaining to a broader audience what these folk are doing. to the world of the best effort public internet it is utterly ALIEN. but my understanding is that it works. NOW. That it is a walled garden and that a big unknown is how long it will remain a walled garden. Hmmm. Maybe I need to be a little more explicit in my concerns I am not concerned with the applications of the bandwidth that research folks are doing. Of course, research for research's sake has a value. I guess I meant... what is this interest in building a new network from scratch when all they are doing is using commercially available equipment provided by Cisco, and perhaps other vendors, etc? Regen is probably handled by the fiber vendors too... so where is the research in running a network?? Its trying to use the network as a service, of which, I am not sure there are many research interests that have more experience than the commercial folks. By mentioning MPLS or another tunneling technology, I didn't mean to imply IPV4. Indeed, I meant that you can encapsulate whatever you want on an underlying network, or if you need raw access to the optics, you can always order wavelengths... The idea of building a network like this seemed like reinventing a dirt road next to an existing superhighway. Likewise, with the Internet2 stuff, the underlying network is provided by commercial carriers... End equipment may be different, and that's the way it is with all commercial circuits today for standards-based communications/protocols.. So what is the value in dedicated research networks when the same facility can be provided by existing lit capacities by commercial networks? Is it a price delta? Or is it belief that the commercial folks don't meet the needs of the underlying applications? (if its the latter, I'd love to know what is being done). To hash this out even more In regards to regional academic networks, I completely understand that there are significant economies by operating as a single entity. The complexity of running dark fiber in a regional network isn't really bad at all, and capacity can be added in pretty dynamic increments. However, once you start expanding to connect regional networks to each, it seems that the complexity increases far faster than the benefits -- and where universal/commercial carriers seem to have the greatest value offering. What am I missing? (P.S. have a nice holiday). DJ -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info:
Re: Cable and Wireless partners with Reliance to set up datacenters in
Daniel Senie: Was anyone truly surprised CW failed in the US marketplace? They seem only able to make money when they're the government-sanctioned monopoly. It'll be interesting to see if they can handle competition in India any better than they did in the US. Last march I did a long interview with Farooq Hussain about the economics of peering and Cable and Wireless's role in the collapse of the tier one peering proposition. Farooq was absolutely scathing in his indictment of Cable and Wireless' arrogant behavior. Apparently, they (CW) learned nothing and are now waltzing into an indian partnership where the indian partners don't know anymore. See http://www.cookreport.com/13.03.shtml and http://www.cookreport.com/13.05.shtml -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Worldcall to use ISDN interconnec- tion to offer equivalent of ILEC UNE platform at: http://cookreport.com/13.09.shtml =
Re: why upload with adsl is faster than 100M ethernet ?
Alex Bligh wrote: --On 15 October 2004 13:33 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the cause can also be rate limiting. Rate limiting is deadly for TCP performance so it shouldn't be used on TCP traffic. Add unless appropriate shaping is performed prior to the rate-limiting with the parameters carefully tuned to the rate-limiting You can also see an effect similar to rate-limiting from inadequate buffering where there is a higher input media speed than output. The following link provided a great overview of tcp throughput http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm I can't remember what the tool is now, but there used to be a tool which worked like ping but sent a udp stream at a given rate per second and told you about packet drops, and also allowed for some parameter to be tweaked to give stochastic variation in interpacket delay (i.e. massive jitter). You could use this to show inadequate buffering on gigabit interfaces where a 2Mb/s stream would get through, but if you wound up the jitter sufficiently, a whole burst of packets would arrive together and a gigabit interface with (deliberately) misconfigured buffers would then drop packets. Alex netiq's qcheck (the artist formerly known as ganymede) is a utility we commonly use to prove to customers that they are indeed receiving correct throughput. http://www.ixiacom.com/products/performance_applications/pa_display.php?skey=pa_q_check -Gordon
time to bury nethead versus bellhead polemics
Hope that more than a few here will be interested in some of my recent conclusions - from the November issue that I just published. Why a Layered Model is the Only Reasonable Way to Evaluate Telecom Lines of Business Have Blurred - Making the Regulatory Concept of Vertical Silos Archaic Time Has Come to Bury All Bellhead versus Nethead Polemics Introduction Since the bubble burst in late 2000 sending the Internet and the rest of telecom into a tailspin, it has been rather obvious that former stability and predictability of the economics of telecommunications has been shattered. The last several issues of The COOK Report have explored the fallout of those shattered economics in great detail. In this introduction The COOK Report notes that telecom economics is likely to stay broken, first, due to oversupply, and second due to lack of differentiation on anything other than price across too many competitors in services and service providers. Third: because of very loosely bonded brand loyalty. A final and very serious additional problem is regulatory instability as the FCC struggles with historical precedent in its interpretation of legislation. It finds itself whip-sawed between its vertical silo model derived from the technology it regulates, and the increasingly advocated horizontal network layer view of the IP enabled services, including but not limited to VoIP, Video over IP, and so on. As long-term, and, perhaps, not so long term, readers of The COOK Report are aware, this publication has not only long trumpeted the bellhead vs. nethead divide, but taken a partisan position where anything seen to be bell-headed was regarded as bad while netheaded was seen as the 'nirvana' to which the Internet would guide telecommunications. = = == For the remainder of my Bury Bellhead versus Nethead Polemics article please see http://cookreport.com/13.08.shtml -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Why Bellhead vs Nethead polemics don't help at: http://cookreport.com/13.08.shtml E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
Anything I/we can do to help the cause? Bob Martin yes. I almost missed this one. There are few entities for which i have more contempt than ICANN. But verisign heads the more contempt than ICANN list by several orders of magnitude. in my estimation it would like to control telecom by control of the numbers associated therewith. In addition to the present issue which owen de long described here masterfully last fall, verisign's alliance with EPC global at some point in the future could give it huge power in supply chain rfid numbering systems. Finally there is something doing in the voip area that i am not clear on at all but which i didn't like the sound of when i read the description. I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income - only grief. But, knowing what i know, i am remiss if i don't stick my head up here. I go waaa back with network solutions to 1994 actually and i keep damned good archives. If I can assist Paul or the anti-verisign part of this case in building the details of the history of who did what to whom, I gladly will do so Quoted from different thread: (note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing in court filings at some point.) -- Paul Vixie -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Report on economic black hole of best effort networks at: http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
RE: NLB Recommendations
I have experience with F5 BigIP, Foundry, Cisco CSS, Nortel Alteon and the Inkra VSS. F5 is great for ease of use. It's built on BSD, so the CLI is exactly unix with special commands to manipulate the load balancing features. I think you can only used this box in routed-mode LB, but someone speak up if you can use it in bridged-mode. They have an iRule feature where you can filter and route traffic based on many parameter, such as various http headers. If you have a lot of layer 7 switching to do, you can configure it easily on the F5. Their support, however, needs work. I haven't called in a year, so it may have improved. The Foundry is very good at many sessions per second. I've used these mostly in DSR (direct server return) mode and have had good luck with them. For basic layer 4 switching they're very good. I've never used any layer 7 features on the Foundry. Foundry's documentation needs help, though. The Cisco Content Services Switch is ok, but overpriced. I don't care for the interface. I've never loaded this one up, so I'm not sure how it performs under heavly load. The Nortel Alteon is pretty good. I've seen some odd issues with the VMA architecture, but they're usually addressed in the latest patch. The cli takes a burn-in period, but once you know it you can fly on the box. Configuring layer 7 features can be cryptic, however. Use they're application guides for help. I've used the Alteon in routed-mode and bridged-mode load balancing. Lastly, the Inkra. I've been using the Inkra for a few years, but it's relatively new compared to the others listed above. They market it as a virtual services switch which means it not only does load balancing, but also firewall, ssl acceleration, ids/idp, etc. We've seen big improvements in the past six months with load balancing performace due to the release of 2.0 code. I'm eagerly awaiting their 3.0 due out in mid summer. NOTE: I may be biased since the company I work for has been helping Inkra develop and test it for several years. You may want to join the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more load balancing advice and help. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Lyon Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:07 AM To: James Baldwin Cc: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: NLB Recommendations I have had nothing but good luck with Foundry's ServerIron. Very versatile. Cisco-like CLI. I have always had good support with Foundry's TAC too. -Mike On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:32:44 -0400, James Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for recommendations for network load balancers. These, at this time, will primarily be used to attach to a cluster of webservers although I would like a solution which can be repurposed to other applications later. I am looking at F5's Big IP, Cisco's SLB, and Foundry's ServerIron at this time.
Re: best effort has economic problems
may I make just a passing observation? From a technology point of view the best effort internet certainly works. Not surprisingly the comments here are primarily debating the finer points of the technology. The point I am making in my report is NOT that the best effort network has technology problems but rather that it has ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. That it might support 2 or 3 players not 2 or 3 HUNDRED. That until companies begin to go chapter seven and vanish, the best effort net will be a black hole that burns up capital because, for many players, the OPERATIONAL expense is more than they get for bandwidth never mind cap-ex. best effort won't go away. many best effort players will. for the time being, best effort bandwidth prices as an absolute commodity cannot sustain networks over the long haul. A network that can deliver QoS the report hypothesizes may be able to attract enough revenue to become profitable. How to to this my group is still discussing. We don't pretend that QoS is easy or any kind of mature collection of technologies, but increasingly it looks as though the industry, if it is ever going to be self sustaining, really needs to look at QoS services and solutions. On Sat, 29 May 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote: Nitpicking: Latency isn't that important with unidirectional communication. However, VoIP users seem reasonably happy with current latency and jitter -- and the Internet still is _largely_ xxTP, anyway... particularly if one ignores peer-to-peer file- swapping programs. Latency is fine for VOIP as long as you dont interact with the PSTN network, if you want to interact with PSTN then you need echo cancellation if you have high latency on the IP part. Most VOIP applications can handle 40ms jitter, so that's normally no problem unless your local access is full. Packet loss is normally no problem for VOIP if you use a proper (non-telco developed) codec. VOIP is actually better off with high packet loss and low jitter than the other way around (throwing off the old truth that core equipment should have lots of buffers). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Report on economic black hole of best effort networks at: http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
best effort business model seen as not economically sustainable
Greetings Nanogers, I published a two month issue last weekend with the bottom line conclusion that there can be no telecom recovery as long as the industry relies solely on the best effort business model which I believe is not economically sustainable. This has led to two articles on my June-July issue conclusions this week in the trade press. Something that has never happened to me before. :-) The first is ISP Planet and the second Broadband Edge. Here are the urls http://www.isp-planet.com/perspectives/2004/cook_internet.html (monday) http://bbedge.mblast.com/presentation/page798-878156.asp (today) Finally my summary, table of contents and list of contributors is at http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml Enjoy the weekend. -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Report on economic black hole of best effort networks at: http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be had for $20 per megabit per second? I last had a detailed look at peering and transit economics in the summer of 2002. It is pretty amazing to see what has happened to prices since then. I have a private mail list underway on this subject and published the first part of a two part study on Saturday. Details available at http://cookreport.com/13.03.shtml Any opinions here on what MCI coming out of bankruptcy will mean? How will once mighty ATT compete? How can it possibly compete if it actually tries to pay the interest on its bonds? June 2004 COOK Report page one: Economic Pressure on Long Haul Fiber Five Years After Bubble Burst Prices Have Plunged Yet Nothing Fundamental Has Been Fixed Examination of Data Network Woes Shows Termite-Riddled Foundation Leading to More Bankruptcies in Absence of Broader Understanding Tech-Telcom Recovery, or just a pause before the next round of bankruptcies? In this issue we explain why we believe that competitive fiber backbones have a failing business model that has driven prices below the cost of maintenance and replacement. We point out that the carriers are making up the difference with cost cutting in every way imaginable and by subsidizing the loosing backbones with what profits remain from voice. As the voice profits disappear via government (GIG BE), corporate, and municipal networks that are buying and lighting their own strands of fiber, and hence leaving the PSTN, another round of bankruptcies looks to be inevitable. As Eli Noam has warned, when the dominoes start to fall again, the US government, rather than let the telecommunications system collapse, will have no choice but to step in and start regulating IP networks. The kind of regulation that is coming will have little to do with encouraging common carriage or wide spread access to broadband. Instead it will have everything to do with consolidating a few remaining survivors and enabling them to pay their bondholders. The scene is not a pretty one and the miserable policy is being made exacerbated by American bankruptcy law that permits bankrupt fiber carrier to reorganize through Chapter 11 rather than insisting on disbandment via Chapter 7. What is especially pernicious about this situation is that permitting bankrupt carriers such as MCI to reorganize makes a bad situation worse. It does nothing to get rid of the company's massive glut of fiber. Instead, by wiping out its debt, it ensures a cost cutting advantage to the reorganized company. Still, blessed with the same massive amount of fiber it had before, it can gain income by again cutting prices below what its not-yet-bankrupt cousins like ATT and Sprint can afford to sell, if they are to every pay off their bonds. Roxanne Googin, in an interview to be published next month, was scathing in her comments on MCI being allowed by the Bush Justice Department to file Chapter 11 rather than 7 - given the company's acknowledged massive fraud. She added that, given the MCI example, in her opinion any carrier that makes a good faith effort to pay back its bond holders is just plain foolish. With this issue we turn to the badly broken economics of peering and the attendant backbone business models. After three hours conversation with Farooq Hussain and ninety minutes with Farooq and Roxane Googin we have a clearer picture of where things went wrong beginning with the privatization of the NSF Net backbone in April 1995. The plan when implemented was a reasonable one, but it is fascinating to look back and understand how all the dominoes fell the wrong way. The result made a bad situation steadily worse until the Cable and Wireless bankruptcy of 2002 ripped a major hole in the Tier One hierarchical façade and pointed the way to the technology topology business case issues pointed out by Farooq during our conversation of April 4, 2004. This fairly short issue lays the foundations for the mail list discussion that began on March 18 and will be published in the next issue in about mid May. In focusing on the woes of the LECs during the past two years, we have overlooked the fact that the carriers are in worse shape and that the telcos are again speeding toward the precipice. Most everything is broken and, one of the frustrating issues, is that it is difficult to get agreement on just where. The phone companies do need to die and be replaced. But a huge problem that remains is that, unlike Japan, and many other countries, the US is in gridlock. For, in the US, the ILECS and IXCs own the FCC. There is still enough money left in the industry that government is hobbled by a political unwillingness to let the bond and equity holders take the consequences and get on with life. Looking for the Big Picture and By Passing the Carrier Let's look more closely at what is going on. One consequence of the fiber glut has been
Re: Anyone from AS 577 (BellNexxia) around ?
the mirror may be gone because, according to Francois menard, bell nexxia was disbanded by bell canada in april or may 2003 and absorbed back into bell canada's operations I asked through regular channels, but no one knew the answer. You used to have a looking glass at http://looking-glass.in.bellnexxia.net:8080/ but its been offline for a while. Did it move ? Is it gone for good ? ---Mike Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing Internet since 1994www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 =
needed Comcast engineer with clue
I apologize for bringing this to the list, but i have expended approximately 22 hours since monday on the problem without resolution and without consistent replies or consistent reliable response from comcast. The short version of situation is that i am getting between 11% and 52% packet loss to various IP adress. From the terminal window on OSX i run ping -s 1024 xxx.xx.xxx.xxx where the x's are the ip number. Under these conditions i cannot successfully sen an email with a two meg attachment. 609 394 2288 is the local number of the Trenton NJ office a few miles from my house. calls to there were routed to a national call center so that effort just failed. If i could only reach someone in their engineering dept locally who could run some configuration tests on their local routers switches etc, they could probably save further visits to my house... next one scheduled sunday between 1 and 3pm. The network at the physical level is fine. This is a layer 3 tcp/ip problem. I have replaced my cable modem and done hours of trouble shooting within my house to confirm it is not on my side of the network. I was promised an engineer this morning with laptop. They didn't keep the promise and sent a tech who checked the physical signal and went away and apparently scheduled sundays visit. comcast please contact me off list..email or phone numbers below -- = The COOK Report on Internet, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml License Exempt Wireless Report http://cookreport.com/12.07-08.shtml Purchase ten years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 =
Fw: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
Of the DDOS attacks I have had to deal with in the past year I have seen none which were icmp based. As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate limiting icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow? -Gordon On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable future. What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? Cheers, Rich
In answer to a Nanog request - How to get Free Cook Report BackIssues
Well over a year ago someone on Nanog asked me why I didn't give away back issues. I said I planned to give them away at the Creative Commons web site. I sent a bunch to them on a CD rom but as far as I know nothing happened. OK - The wait is over and more than 10 years of back issues are now available at no cost. Two from just over a year ago instantaneously. The rest by registration. At http://cookreport.com/ you will find pointers to the following changes. 1. COOK Report Back issues available three different ways. (a) You can down load past issues from April 1992 through June July 2002 by registering and having me assign a username and password. (b) The issues of April - May and June July 2002 are instantly down loadable without registration via 2 links at the top of the home page. (c) In about 2 weeks they likely will also be available for a small charge on a CD rom through cafe.press 2. There are also some very nice endorsements. 3. There are two small forums one where you can make comments and a second one way mail list from me that you can sign up for. In the next 30 days I may install an actual blog - namely Greymatter http://noahgrey.com/greysoft/ I would welcome comments on what folk find. BTW I will publish an issue on license exempt wireless by about Labor Day. Between now and the end of the year one of my interests is to explore what IBM is calling pervasive computing. This, by 2010, could involve many hundreds of millions of small embedded processors using open source software and license exempt spectrum. I would appreciate pointers to people doing work in the area of pervasive computing. It is allied with grids certainly. But grids would be, I think, more of a back end. -- = The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) 17318 (FWD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlFiber Wireless as First Mile Technology - Fiber Business Models Architecture, July- September 2003, 130 pages available at http://cookreport.com/12.04-06.shtml =
Clueful Engineer at CW Needed - OC-3 Problem
36hrs, 4 escalations, and an OC-3 that's still down. If there are any clueful CW IP Engineers out there, please reply offlist. Ticket #030306-106485.
can you ping mount everest?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/technology/circuits/23sher.html If you remember my comments about the remarkable sherpa i met in kathmandu relative to the SANOG conference which opens there today, the above URL takes you to a very good story in todays new york times1400 words with 3 pictures unfortunately the picture the times published is of the wrong base camp they published the north face which is in china not the south face base camp which is in nepal. sigh oh...everest not likely pingable for another 60 days -- 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 VoIP Enterprise Adopt Open Spectrum January Feb 2003 107 pages available at http://cookreport.com/11.11.shtml
Re: OT. - The end of inet-access
As for inet-access being more on-topic than NANOG, that's only because the scope of NANOG is much more narrow. On inet-access, you're only off topic if you're not talking about issues related to providing internet access. Another possible reason inet-access is more on-topic is because JC's ten times more dictatorial than Susan. She doesn't care if you've been posting for 7 years, if you annoy her, you're gone unless you do what she tells you to. But I'm bitter and biased...mea culpa. Oh yes. Quite true. She drove me off of it about three years ago. I had been posting my monthly summaries there since joining it in 1994. That action was judged to be unacceptable. From what Dave Hughes tells me the wireless ISP list is where the real action is now. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access -- 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 VoIP Enterprise Adopt Open Spectrum January Feb 2003 107 pages available at http://cookreport.com/11.11.shtml
finds and other data frommy report on economics of peering andtransit
At the end of August when I posted news about my interviews with Bill Woodcock's views on synthetic path analysis and the economics of peering and requested additional help from peering coordinators I promised a brief report. Response from Nanog was excellent. 16 additional folk joined mail list making a total of 32 - 25 of whom made contributions to the discussion. you will find the introductory article containing my complete findings, a list of the 25 contributors and the complete table of contents at http://cookreport.com/11.08-09.shtml I hesitate to say our findings but I did share drafts with list members who made significant criticisms and contributions which i incorporated. -- 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 Info on Economics of Peering, Transit IXs November - December 118 pages available at http://cookreport.com/11.08-09.shtml
economics of peering and transit -- long interview with BillWoodcock and others
I have just published part one of a two part issue on the economics of peering and transit and IX's. Included is a two part interview with Bill Woodcock who elaborates in great detail on the peering and transit methodology that he has been presenting at the last couple of Nanog meetings. Also included are four tables with January 31 2002 Netflow data from Zocalo. The tables are generated with software done for Zocalo at Agilent by Alex Tudor. Bill goes through each table and explains the meaning of the data. This includes an explanation of Synthetic Path Analysis in tables 3 and 4 which as I understand it is really the first published explanation of this approach. The interviews with Bill explain over all how ISPs can begun to mold tools into a bandwidth cost management system. My November issue also includes a long and detailed over view of the nasty consequences of the current Tier One oligopoly. The overview is an essay by Farooq Hussain in which he identifies the Internet Core backbones (see December 5, 2001 announcement of Equinix's Internet Core Service) as UUNET, Level 3, Qwest, ATT, Sprint, Cable Wireless and Genuity. Andrew Odlyzko adds comments. Thanks to Zocalo I am running a private mail list where discussion of the Woodcock and related methodology, exchanges, peering, bandwidth cost and the like is on going. In addition to Bill Woodcock active participants include Avi Freedman, Phil Weller (Fast net CTO), Mike Hughes, Alex Tudor, Stephen Stuart, Phillip Smith, Farooq Hussain, Andrew Odlyzko and Keith Mitchell. If there are other Peering Coordinators here (or folk playing that role) who would like to contribute to the discussion (warning it is for publication) please email woody@pchnet and [EMAIL PROTECTED] stating the nature of you interest. Results of these discussions and other data will come out round about October 1. For the table of contents, complete introduction and Andrew Odlyzko's comments please visit http://cookreport.com/11.08.shtml -- 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 Economics of Peering, Transit IXs Part One - November issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.08.shtml
final note on cookreport/ bill woodcock peering discussion
I am leaving at 6 am in the morning for a small internet meeting in massachusetts. I am unlikely to see my email again until saturday morning. We have had eight different requests to join the discussion since my post this afternoon. Since the mail list is running on bill's woodcock's machine, it is only reasonable that he be the gatekeeper on additions to the list at this point. However he is at APIA in Japan right now and will not be back in the US for a bit more than another week. if I understand the situation correctly he will need to relay list addition requests to a colleague in California. If some folk do get added between now and the weekend please introduce yourselves to the list. Agenda I intend to publish an issue with list discussion around October 1. although since I let list members have a week to review a prepub draft and ask for edits correctionss etc, the current discussion will need to wrap up in the sept 23-25th time frame. But since the subject may change and evolve i am open to keeping the discussion going for a LOT LOT LONGER either on bills server or in another venue. I will be out of the country trekking near mount everest from October 15th until November 10th. The issue published about Oct 1 will be the December issue. I estimate that january will come out about december 1. If a discussion is continuing on line in october and november, it can certainly do so in my absence. I'd like to thank everyone for their help. I hope that we can document in considerable detail the changing economics, policy, politics and technologies of interconnection. -- 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 Economics of Peering, Transit IXs Part One - November issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.08.shtml
Re: If you thought Y2K was bad, wait until cyber-security hits
It has taken me more than an hour to recover from reading that depressing Probe Research alert. OK I have a question. Can't the ISPs gather here regard this as an invitation to leave the PSTN? If this goes down as suggested it seems to me that if they don't leave the PSTN in SOME fashion they will be strangled by the big telco players in the Soviet style, homeland security, central planning bureaucracy. Will these regs apply to common carriers? But not to information service providers? Is the FCC direction on broadband therefore a good thing for ISPs? Should every ISP that wants to remain independent go wireless and look for a fiber connection to an inter exchange carrier network? As if these ISPs don't avoid the LECs already? What is the feasibility of separating an IP internet from the LEC networks? Is Cogent our friend? or anyone else who buys up IP assets at fire sale prices? Can the Bush Men really be against redundant networks? Probe Research has a very lucid take on this very topic at http://www.proberesearch.com/alerts/networksecurity.htm Their point is that, given the current climate, the RBOCs are likely to be setting the agenda for cyber security. To quote Probe's first two conclusions: First, the RBOCs will be the focus of developing a telecom national security plan; Second, the RBOCs will use this position to force costs onto all players. For example, co-location will be viewed as increasing the risk to telecom, so carriers may be forced to abandon co-location in favor of smaller nodes and these nodes will have to have remote backup nodes. Cheers, Mathew -- 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
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
Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprintpeering policy
Regarding Pauls' excellent comment. During the buildout phase 1995 - 1999 I understand very well the reasons for no regulation of interconnection. Successful growth was happening too fast for the Fed's to second guess by regulating interconnect the process of which would slow the build out down and do economic harm. We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why? All the TIER 1s (6 were mentioned in an earlier comment) are in SERIOUS economic trouble. Their IP networks certainly qualify as CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. EBONE in a matter of days went from 'viable to life support. After WorldCom's scandal this week does anyone REALLY think a similar UGLY surprise cannot happen here? As PAUL points out, this is now an industry that is critical to keeping economic activity flowing smoothly, yet Washington is taking more and more of a hands off course. Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue? Does the borg still exist? do big players at least still share this data with each other? Will Congress have to pass a law before the FCC can demand data? as Vixie said: we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind. Paul Vixie said something important when he commented that i won't take a position on this, other than that dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability. wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer (citizen). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted: 1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life ( economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here. none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of self regulation currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind. -- 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
