Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 07:06 +0100, Serge Radovcic wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5837LcDHfE Excellent production. Sometimes it's hard for those who have been so involved in maintaining the grounds to describe what the forest looks like to common folk. Perhaps as a followup to this video, you could make another one that explains some of the history of the IXP, how diverse they can be and how they are evolving to meet the demands of the next generation of content distribution and the distributed shared computing resources. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon kh...@neebu.net ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote: Excellent production. ... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:55 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote: Excellent production. ... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned). Well, yes. Obviously it is meant to highlight the roles of public exchanges. That much is obvious. And given the source of the production it would seem to be expected. It did touch on private interconnects although you're right to point out that it doesn't weigh in on the pros and cons of public vs private peering, shared switch fabric vs direct connections, etc. But in a 5 min video, I wouldn't expect it to nor would I expect it to be appropriate for its intended audience. I didn't think this was supposed to be a screen adaptation of Norton's peering whitepapers. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon kh...@neebu.net ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: about udp 80,8080,0
On 10/02/2010, at 5:01 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: If you don't need UDP, disallow it to your entire network or to the /xx where such is applicable. We have basic filters like this with our carriers upstream and have prevented several Gbps of traffic from ever hitting our filters as a result. Jeff While this may be suitable in small networks, this type of heavy handed control will simply cause you more problems in the long run. There are just too many applications that use UDP to restrict it to exceptions. UDP isn't the problem, it's just a method of the attack. Truman 2010/2/9 Michael Holstein michael.holst...@csuohio.edu: What does application use 8.8080,0 port for the proper purpose? I've seen newer BitTorrent clients do this (UDP is supported, and the port can be arbitrary). Cheers, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ddosprotection to find out about news, promotions, and (gasp!) system outages which are updated in real time. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to protect your booty.
Re: ip address management
Mark Scholten (mark) writes: Hello, I am also working on creating a IP address management tool (including changing rDNS), of course it should work with IPv4 and IPv6. If someone is interested in it, please mail me (so I know I have to inform him/her when I release it). If there are certain features that I should include and are not listed please also inform me about it (by email or via the forum on mscholten.eu). Hi Mark, Considering the number of existing projects that have been mentioned in the last couple of weeks here, and those that haven't, wouldn't it be a good idea to see if any of the existing ones can be adapted or patches sent to the authors so that the required features are integrated ? Not trying to discourage you, and more choice is always good, but it does tend to get confusing ;) Features I have now on my list: - Multi user support (admin - user level 3 - user level 2 - user level 1), a user can create users on lower levels to edit how IPs are assigned from their ranges to their customers (nice for companies with resellers!), of course you could also only create level 1 users. Ideally you should consider some form of role based access control: Create roles, assign users and groups to them, and give rights to the roles. - Multi language support (with language files to translate) - Change rDNS (based on changing PTR records in a MySQL database that could be used by PowerDNS and a script will be provided to convert the MySQL database to Bind files) ... or dynamic updates. Current requirements (to host it, this is what I use to test it, other specs may also work): - To use the rDNS: PowerDNS or Bind nameservers - PHP5 (with MySQLi extension and pear packages Net_IPv4 and Net_IPv6) - MySQL 5 - The option to create a cron if you want to convert the database to a Bind file The planned release date for the first version is this month. That's ambitious :) I've designed and co-developed at least 2 platforms similar to the above, and if you really insist on going this way, I think you should publish some requirement specifications somewhere, and let others come with comments. Nanog is a good starting point, but since this touches on DNS as well, I'm sure a dedicated project page would be more useful, with possibly a wiki to update said specs. Cheers, Phil
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote: Excellent production. ... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned). Could you point to a single factual error please? That is a serious charge to just throw out without a single word to back up your claim. And no, omittance of important factors is not a factual error in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic. Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your video. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: And no, omittance of important factors is not a factual error in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic. I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased towards promoting IXPs, and it gives the impression that private peering isn't settlement free and that it can't be used to do what an IXP does. It just doesn't say so explicitly, but implies that it is so by the flow of how things are said and in what order. It sets private connects against IXPs, and then describes all things an IXP can be used for, thus giving the impression that the PNI can't do this. But one factual error for instance, a TCP session (a picture being transfrred) doesn't take multiple paths, that's just wrong to say so. So showing a picture being chopped up in packets and sent over different paths, well that just doesn't happen in normal operation. Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your video. I'm very happy someone is willing to do these kinds of videos, and if you don't want peoples feedback, then just say so. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On 2/10/2010 7:55 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote: Excellent production. I'll go with that. ... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned). Could you point to a single factual error please? That is a serious charge to just throw out without a single word to back up your claim. And no, omittance of important factors is not a factual error in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic. Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your video. That is definitely the best answer--if you don't like it, do one (at your expense of time and other resources) that you like better. I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it was great (and recommended it to other folk). Amazing how many people there are that can't do it, but can find fault with those that can and do. -- Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
Larry Sheldon wrote: That is definitely the best answer--if you don't like it, do one (at your expense of time and other resources) that you like better. Zzz. I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it was great (and recommended it to other folk). I like it for what it was. But i agree with Mike's points. This video is something i could show my mother when she asks how the Internet works and thats pretty much it. Amazing how many people there are that can't do it, but can find fault with those that can and do. So, for example, if i don't like how a car works i must be able to build a car to be allowed to voice my opinion?
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On 02/10/2010 09:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: But one factual error for instance, a TCP session (a picture being transfrred) doesn't take multiple paths, that's just wrong to say so. So showing a picture being chopped up in packets and sent over different paths, well that just doesn't happen in normal operation. But it introduces the audience to the idea that the packets *could* be routed over multiple paths in principle, even if it would constitute evidence of abnormal operation to have this happen within a single session. I think that's the intended take-away, from a pedagogical perspective. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
RE: black listing of web traffic
You mentioned this was a student network. Could it be your students are running bit torrent clients and your ISP doesn't like that so they are rate limiting you? This might explain why apple loads and facebook doesn't. I do not know much about facebooks architecture, but I would guess they would use a CDN or have their own so the facebook traffic would stay entirely in your ISP's network(less need to rate limit) and apples traffic may need to go through a peer. Or, could it be your students are running bit torrent and exhausting the state tables on your firewall. Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. -Original Message- From: Andrey Gordon [mailto:andrey.gor...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:35 PM To: Nanog Subject: black listing of web traffic Hi list I have a problem that I can't seem to find a solution to yet. My student network is being NATted out and anyone who's on that network had troubles accessing random websites. For example, going to www.apple.com or www.facebook.com would work great, but store.apple.com would either not load or take forever to open up. I've had that problem last week and thought I tracked it down to the NAT ip being black listed with one of the span black lists. Even though that IP is not used for mail out, that somehow seemed to affect it. Changing it to a different one seemed to solve the problem and I got that original address of the list in the mean time. Changed it back and everything was well, until today. Same symptoms, but now I don't see us listed anywhere. The best description of the symptoms seems to be that that IP is rate limited or something. Anyone seen that? Are there any blacklists for web access? PS. I checked everything under my control and i don't see a bottle neck anywhere or anything like and IPS working up or something - Andrey Gordon [andrey.gor...@gmail.com]
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: And no, omittance of important factors is not a factual error in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic. I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased towards promoting IXPs, and it gives the impression that private peering isn't settlement free and that it can't be used to do what an IXP does. It just doesn't say so explicitly, but implies that it is so by the flow of how things are said and in what order. It sets private connects against IXPs, and then describes all things an IXP can be used for, thus giving the impression that the PNI can't do this. Agree to disagree is right. The film is called The Internet Revealed: _A_film_about_IXPs_. You find it strange that the film would actually focus on IXPs. I find it strange that you couldn't figure this out before clicking play. As for implying private x-conns are paid for, I did not get that at all. They start with the fact some companies use private connections and say more and more traffic is flowing through shared service platforms we call Internet Exchange Points. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. But one factual error for instance, a TCP session (a picture being transfrred) doesn't take multiple paths, that's just wrong to say so. So showing a picture being chopped up in packets and sent over different paths, well that just doesn't happen in normal operation. That's just wrong to say? Thank you for proving yourself not qualified to discuss the subject at hand. Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your video. I'm very happy someone is willing to do these kinds of videos, and if you don't want peoples feedback, then just say so. Me? I had nothing to do with the video. That said, I will concede that you should not have to make your own to be allow to comment on someone else's. (See point in Jay's post about making cars.) However, I do believe you should know how the Internet works. And if you honestly believe packets in a single stream cannot travel over different paths, you clearly do not. And before you come back with BS about normal operation or such, realize your statement was far more factually incorrect than what the video said about private interconnects. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jay Ess wrote: I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it was great (and recommended it to other folk). I like it for what it was. But i agree with Mike's points. This video is something i could show my mother when she asks how the Internet works and thats pretty much it. There are 100s of people in my company who could benefit from seeing the video, and probably quite a few on this very list. Not everyone who works on the Internet is a routing engineer. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On 10/02/2010 14:46, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased towards promoting IXPs, Uh, it was produced and paid for by IXPs for the intention of promoting IXPs. Why do you have an issue with this? and it gives the impression that private peering isn't settlement free and that it can't be used to do what an IXP does. It just doesn't say so explicitly, but implies that it is so by the flow of how things are said and in what order. It sets private connects against IXPs, and then describes all things an IXP can be used for, thus giving the impression that the PNI can't do this. Call me glib, but if you can get the association of PNI providers together to create a movie about what PNIs are and how they work, I'd be ok if they glossed over IXPs. But one factual error for instance, a TCP session (a picture being transfrred) doesn't take multiple paths, that's just wrong to say so. ECMP? Per packet load balancing, even? Again, the point they were making is that the path from A to B is not particularly important to the data being transferred. Look, the creators of the movie had 5 minutes to explain something so that regular Janes and Joes would understand, rather than 1 hour to give a nerdy in-depth explanation of the nuts and bolts of IXPs. Personally, I think they did a rather good job. Nick (day job: contract IXP operations)
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On 2/10/2010 9:28 AM, Jay Ess wrote: So, for example, if i don't like how a car works i must be able to build a car to be allowed to voice my opinion? How much did you pay for the video? -- Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On 2/10/2010 9:42 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Not everyone who works on the Internet is a routing engineer. I(including some who bill themselves as such. But that is for a different rant. -- Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
RE: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
-Original Message- From: Jay Ess [mailto:li...@netrogenic.com] Sent: 10 February 2010 15:29 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available So, for example, if i don't like how a car works i must be able to build a car to be allowed to voice my opinion? If you're opinion is that your car is somehow faulty because it doesn't work like your bicycle does you shouldn't be surprised when people choose to ignore it.
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:56:25AM -0600, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 2/10/2010 9:28 AM, Jay Ess wrote: So, for example, if i don't like how a car works i must be able to build a car to be allowed to voice my opinion? How much did you pay for the video? What does that matter? Whether you paid for it or not, inaccurate information being passed on is a bad thing (I'm not making any claims about this video. shut up you didn't pay for it is just a singularly annoying line of argument in situations like this.) -- Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml -- --
Q9 BGP contact needed, urgently
Please contact me off list. -- James Smith
Google to offer fiber to end users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Granted it's very early on, and g00g could decide to never leave the announce phase. - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer (818)280-7059 char...@knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzF2sACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE91lwCgjdYmEewZtPb2iFM6VZMW5Xce ydkAoI+ycZQ1JYLoZt7yL04CliGXRLoc =4eps -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On 2/10/2010 12:30, Charles N Wyble wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Optimistic view: It can force the incumbents into being competitive on service and everyone wins. Pessimistic view: incumbents feel threatened and try to sue/lobby it away to keep the status quo like they did with cities trying to offer wifi or FTTH. ~Seth
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
I think it's great! I've been preparing to float a similar idea locally. If this is how they use their market cap, I would love for them to do it in my local market, which does seem to hold a near-and-dear place in the heart of some google C* types. - Jared * Local details/breakdown: http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84 On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Granted it's very early on, and g00g could decide to never leave the announce phase. - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer (818)280-7059 char...@knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzF2sACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE91lwCgjdYmEewZtPb2iFM6VZMW5Xce ydkAoI+ycZQ1JYLoZt7yL04CliGXRLoc =4eps -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: On 2/10/2010 12:30, Charles N Wyble wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Optimistic view: It can force the incumbents into being competitive on service and everyone wins. Pessimistic view: incumbents feel threatened and try to sue/lobby it away to keep the status quo like they did with cities trying to offer wifi or FTTH. Google cash Muni cash. I'm not saying it'll work, but they have many more resources at their disposal. Incumbents should be worried. ~Seth -- Brandon Galbraith Mobile: 630.400.6992 FNAL: 630.840.2141
RE: Google to offer fiber to end users
On 2/10/2010 12:30, Charles N Wyble wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-s peed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experiment al.html What do folks think? Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS hosting providers; that should be fun. Maybe it will encourage the incumbant ISP's to start offering users meaningful bgp communities since they won't be able to keep up with the abuse reports. David
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
I'm really interested in their distribution ideas, as well as the bottleneck from the Google network to the rest of the internet. Ah, who am I kidding, it's not like anyone cares about the rest of the internet, right? --Matt On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Granted it's very early on, and g00g could decide to never leave the announce phase. - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer (818)280-7059 char...@knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzF2sACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE91lwCgjdYmEewZtPb2iFM6VZMW5Xce ydkAoI+ycZQ1JYLoZt7yL04CliGXRLoc =4eps -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
* David Hubbard: Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS hosting providers; that should be fun. How is this different from a typical dorm network? (Perhaps with all that P2P filtering software in place, it's a mere self-DoS nowadays, but the analogy was not that far off five years ago or so, with less bandwidth, of course.)
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jared Mauch wrote: I think it's great! I've been preparing to float a similar idea locally. If this is how they use their market cap, I would love for them to do it in my local market, which does seem to hold a near-and-dear place in the heart of some google C* types. - Jared * Local details/breakdown: http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84 Awesome write up. Has anyone in the NANOG community been approached by google? I mean presumably this would require a massive coordination effort with existing exchange points etc. Or is google going to simply build an entire long haul network as well? Perhaps combine this with the containers? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzK9MACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE/doQCgxcwc6iDbrDHKCAD0qjqMFBWP f/MAoIVdGf3cbbGj5Q5pYqFzHadhUw9l =jSgj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Google to offer fiber to end users
From: Florian Weimer [mailto:f...@deneb.enyo.de] * David Hubbard: Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS hosting providers; that should be fun. How is this different from a typical dorm network? (Perhaps with all that P2P filtering software in place, it's a mere self-DoS nowadays, but the analogy was not that far off five years ago or so, with less bandwidth, of course.) Three colleges I've worked at were pretty progressive in their monitoring, rate limiting and proactive management of dorm networks; i.e. full bandwidth to campus, i2, etc. destinations but maybe not to other remote locations, automated responses to bad behavior characteristics, etc. I'm far less worried about someone in a dorm launching a full gig of http requests against one IP than a residential computer doing that for 36 hours before someone from Google takes note. If they manage the broadband abuse they way they do gmail forum spammers, I don't have high hopes. David
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Matt Simmons wrote: I'm really interested in their distribution ideas, as well as the bottleneck from the Google network to the rest of the internet. Ah, who am I kidding, it's not like anyone cares about the rest of the internet, right? The WSJ says: In an interview, Google product manager Minnie Ingersoll said consumers will be able to buy service directly from Google or from other providers, whom Google will allow to resell the service. She said Google will manage the deployment of the network but probably partner with contractors to help build it. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
Le mercredi 10 février 2010 à 15:53 +, Nick Hilliard a écrit : On 10/02/2010 14:46, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased towards promoting IXPs, Uh, it was produced and paid for by IXPs for the intention of promoting IXPs. Why do you have an issue with this? and it gives the impression that private peering isn't settlement free and that it can't be used to do what an IXP does. It just doesn't say so explicitly, but implies that it is so by the flow of how things are said and in what order. It sets private connects against IXPs, and then describes all things an IXP can be used for, thus giving the impression that the PNI can't do this. Call me glib, but if you can get the association of PNI providers together to create a movie about what PNIs are and how they work, I'd be ok if they glossed over IXPs. Good point. But one factual error for instance, a TCP session (a picture being transfrred) doesn't take multiple paths, that's just wrong to say so. ECMP? Per packet load balancing, even? Again, the point they were making is that the path from A to B is not particularly important to the data being transferred. Look, the creators of the movie had 5 minutes to explain something so that regular Janes and Joes would understand, rather than 1 hour to give a nerdy in-depth explanation of the nuts and bolts of IXPs. Personally, I think they did a rather good job. So do I. Cheers, mh Nick (day job: contract IXP operations) signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
dark fiber
I am doing some researchis there a way to find out where there is dark fiber and who own's it?
Re: dark fiber
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Jones wrote: I am doing some researchis there a way to find out where there is dark fiber and who own's it? In California I have had the best success with environmental impact reports from he public utility commission office. Your request is pretty vague :) What geographic area? What type (sea? land?) etc etc. There are a few companies who sell this data as well. After 9/11 it got really hard, but judicious use of search engines will find most stuff. - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer char...@knownelement.com http://www.knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzL4gACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE8Z1wCffecAsiRKZT0mJD4ZIYN8rY6V t58AoJn7Dgd2LLemu+VObJQHCKy4e7LY =pg3F -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Connectivity problems to google via openDNS
On 2/9/10 3:43 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: Turned out that the DNS responses from OpenDNS (they were in a cafe somewhere with free wireless that was using OpenDNS) were giving slightly wrong addresses -- like the real address for example.com was 192.0.2.12, and OpenDNS was giving the response that example.com was at 192.0.2.16 (another server in the same cluster, hence the insane confusion). No wildcarding or recent DNS changes at our end, either -- it was just OpenDNS screwing things up *somehow*. I've never heard of such a report until now. And if true, that would be shockingly bizarre behavior. In the past when I've heard similar, I have a 100% success rate in discovering it's actually a misconfiguration of authoritative records. Feel free to email me directly if you ever find yourself encountering a similar situation like that again and I'll be happy to troubleshoot it. Thanks, David
Re: dark fiber
On Feb 10, 2010, at 5:08 PM, James Jones wrote: I am doing some researchis there a way to find out where there is dark fiber and who own's it? You may be better off asking nznog if it's local to you (or your email). - Jared
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jared Mauch wrote: I think it's great! I've been preparing to float a similar idea locally. If this is how they use their market cap, I would love for them to do it in my local market, which does seem to hold a near-and-dear place in the heart of some google C* types. - Jared * Local details/breakdown: http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84 Awesome write up. Has anyone in the NANOG community been approached by google? I mean presumably this would require a massive coordination effort with existing exchange points etc. Or is google going to simply build an entire long haul network as well? Perhaps combine this with the containers? Thanks. I want to codify it to something more (average) human-readable before I socialize it in the local community. This sort of investment could have some immediate payback, esp if you have local utility (water, power) buy-in. The challenge I see is having the political will to undertake the project. If you adjust rates up over the first few years until the principal is paid off, the payoff could happen in short-order and remain competitive. Deploying microcell/picocell technology would be easy and could save people like ATT Mobility/Cingular part of their billions they look to pay for network upgrades. A large scale project here could possibly be done (on-poles) for as low as $44m, and possibly lower as economies of scale come in to play. I'm hoping someone here reading from GOOG will suggest to any local Ann Arbor Alum (eg: Larry Page) that this would be a chump-change investment that would revolutionize telecommunication in the US. I scaled my model up to Michigan-size (for fun) and came up with a cost somewhere around 1 Billion to run fiber down every public roadway. Taking the GOOG market cap of ~170Bln, and if I consider Michigan average (don't know, but please stick with me), this could be done for a small part of their market cap, and ROI could be at a reasonable speed. GE and 10GE optics that can do 70km are cheap, sometimes lower cost than that HDTV you just bought, this would make life very interesting... - Jared
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Matt Simmons wrote: I'm really interested in their distribution ideas, as well as the bottleneck from the Google network to the rest of the internet. Ah, who am I kidding, it's not like anyone cares about the rest of the internet, right? The WSJ says: In an interview, Google product manager Minnie Ingersoll said consumers will be able to buy service directly from Google or from other providers, whom Google will allow to resell the service. She said Google will manage the deployment of the network but probably partner with contractors to help build it. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb I honestly wonder if they will use ipv4 or ipv6 for their rollout... Could be interesting to watch!
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
Maybe they're getting their Ideas from the Irish :). Magnet (www.magnet.ie) does a similar thing which started over four years ago. They offer fiber to the home and you can use it for triple-play. I believe when they started the offering, the bandwidth was (initially intended to be) limited only by the end user's equipment and they would pay as you go but it appears now as though they have set the limit to 50 Mbps. There's nothing stopping Google from offering Triple-play with extremely cheap long-distance calls, Internet, and HDTV. That kind of bandwidth could easily be utilised, but what next? Google Thin clients? Very exciting! Regards, Ken On 10 February 2010 14:30, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Granted it's very early on, and g00g could decide to never leave the announce phase. - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer (818)280-7059 char...@knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzF2sACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE91lwCgjdYmEewZtPb2iFM6VZMW5Xce ydkAoI+ycZQ1JYLoZt7yL04CliGXRLoc =4eps -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jared Mauch wrote: On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jared Mauch wrote: I think it's great! I've been preparing to float a similar idea locally. If this is how they use their market cap, I would love for them to do it in my local market, which does seem to hold a near-and-dear place in the heart of some google C* types. - Jared * Local details/breakdown: http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84 Awesome write up. Has anyone in the NANOG community been approached by google? I mean presumably this would require a massive coordination effort with existing exchange points etc. Or is google going to simply build an entire long haul network as well? Perhaps combine this with the containers? Thanks. I want to codify it to something more (average) human-readable before I socialize it in the local community. Sure thing. Make sure to blog it up so folks can contribute feedback :) This sort of investment could have some immediate payback, esp if you have local utility (water, power) buy-in. Indeed. I was surprised to find how much utility fiber networks exist. I was in a meet me room in down town Los Angeles, and both So Cal Edison and DWP had a presence. I knew that DWP had a fiber network, but wasn't aware SoCal Edison did. Also the city of Burbank power company maintains a fiber network, which links all the studios together. Unfortunately you can't bring dark fiber into the major colo there (Qwest IIRC). However it's quite easy to link any facilities together, and this is heavily utilized by the studios (most of whom have several sites). The challenge I see is having the political will to undertake the project. Hah. Right. Especially with telcos being large campaign contributers. If you adjust rates up over the first few years until the principal is paid off, the payoff could happen in short-order and remain competitive. Mmhmm. And quite frankly, this wouldn't really be necessary if the telcos actually did last mile build outs of fiber at a decent pace. People are very willing to pay for this stuff. It's been proven time and time again. Otherwise the muni folks wouldn't have passed bond measures, started build out and been sued into oblivion by the telcos. That was treated as a last resort, after lack of action by the incumbents. Deploying microcell/picocell technology would be easy and could save people like ATT Mobility/Cingular part of their billions they look to pay for network upgrades. Yep. They should become partners in these efforts and help guide the overall design/requirements etc. Jump in and discuss things like CoS/QoS/e911 etc etc etc. Not to mention considerable expertise in the construction of large scale networks. Alas they won't see it that way :) A large scale project here could possibly be done (on-poles) for as low as $44m, and possibly lower as economies of scale come in to play. Exactly. Especially if the various utility companies can realize the benefit. Smart grid etc. I have no problem with certain amounts of bandwidth being reserved for uses by city governments/ utility corporations who help shoulder the initial build out costs. I'm hoping someone here reading from GOOG will suggest to any local Ann Arbor Alum (eg: Larry Page) that this would be a chump-change investment that would revolutionize telecommunication in the US. It sure could. Far more attractive from a CAPex and OPex perspective. I scaled my model up to Michigan-size (for fun) and came up with a cost somewhere around 1 Billion to run fiber down every public roadway. Taking the GOOG market cap of ~170Bln, and if I consider Michigan average (don't know, but please stick with me), this could be done for a small part of their market cap, and ROI could be at a reasonable speed. GE and 10GE optics that can do 70km are cheap, sometimes lower cost than that HDTV you just bought, this would make life very interesting... Quite. :) - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer char...@knownelement.com http://www.knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzN/QACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE88iQCdG1u2RMSdXwFUZjnvxWUqV4JO PGEAn1T4QvtFhOQhUGlrUlBfuZrMpcfl =RGf/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
Hi Jared You can now nominate your community http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/public/options Regards Abdul On 2/10/10 2:18 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jared Mauch wrote: I think it's great! I've been preparing to float a similar idea locally. If this is how they use their market cap, I would love for them to do it in my local market, which does seem to hold a near-and-dear place in the heart of some google C* types. - Jared * Local details/breakdown: http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84 Awesome write up. Has anyone in the NANOG community been approached by google? I mean presumably this would require a massive coordination effort with existing exchange points etc. Or is google going to simply build an entire long haul network as well? Perhaps combine this with the containers? Thanks. I want to codify it to something more (average) human-readable before I socialize it in the local community. This sort of investment could have some immediate payback, esp if you have local utility (water, power) buy-in. The challenge I see is having the political will to undertake the project. If you adjust rates up over the first few years until the principal is paid off, the payoff could happen in short-order and remain competitive. Deploying microcell/picocell technology would be easy and could save people like ATT Mobility/Cingular part of their billions they look to pay for network upgrades. A large scale project here could possibly be done (on-poles) for as low as $44m, and possibly lower as economies of scale come in to play. I'm hoping someone here reading from GOOG will suggest to any local Ann Arbor Alum (eg: Larry Page) that this would be a chump-change investment that would revolutionize telecommunication in the US. I scaled my model up to Michigan-size (for fun) and came up with a cost somewhere around 1 Billion to run fiber down every public roadway. Taking the GOOG market cap of ~170Bln, and if I consider Michigan average (don't know, but please stick with me), this could be done for a small part of their market cap, and ROI could be at a reasonable speed. GE and 10GE optics that can do 70km are cheap, sometimes lower cost than that HDTV you just bought, this would make life very interesting... - Jared
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Charles N Wyble wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Wonderful move - might breath life back into the small ISP market. I hope it's a fully multicast-enabled network too. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I honestly wonder if they will use ipv4 or ipv6 for their rollout... Could be interesting to watch! Hopefully both. This could be one of the first large scale, dual stacked offerings to end users. There is of course Comcast who recently announced a v6 beta, and impulse.net for folks in the SoCal region. Not sure of any other CLEC types offering v6, but if you are speak up! I guess the phrase innovate/catch up or get run over applies here. :) - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer char...@knownelement.com http://www.knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzOV8ACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE8NkgCgv+9788FreA9dVD9dyoVWWgb7 D5IAoKvjukIOI0NV68+YndpSJ0ItFIwr =vgqD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Charles N Wyble wrote: announced a v6 beta, and impulse.net for folks in the SoCal region. Not sure of any other CLEC types offering v6, but if you are speak up! I suspect you're more likely to find regional ISPs offering v6 than CLECs. The latter seem driven by the sale of circuits and bandwidth, not necessarilly in the efficient or innovative use of those circuits and bandwidth. I guess the phrase innovate/catch up or get run over applies here. :) Yep. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
--- ae...@cisco.com wrote: From: Abdulkadir Egal ae...@cisco.com You can now nominate your community http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/public/options --- When you select 'nominate your community' you're taken to a 'create an account' page. I doubt they'd consider Sunset Beach on the North Shore of Oahu Hawaii anyway. That's kinda out there... ;-) scott
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Agree to disagree is right. The film is called The Internet Revealed: _A_film_about_IXPs_. You find it strange that the film would actually focus on IXPs. I find it strange that you couldn't figure this out before clicking play. If it would have said The internet revealed - an advertisement for IXPs I might have been expecting the thing I got. It's a matter of degree, right? However, I do believe you should know how the Internet works. And if you honestly believe packets in a single stream cannot travel over different paths, you clearly do not. And before you come back with BS about normal operation or such, realize your statement was far more factually incorrect than what the video said about private interconnects. I'm saying they don't normally do so, as one might believe when looking at the movie. Any core router ECMP algorithm that sprays L4 sessions like that will cause re-ordering which is bad, mkay. Yes, flow switching is common, but it is by no means guaranteed. Lots of people do per-packet across LAG bundles. The Internet topology changes do not wait until all TCP sessions are complete. Not everyone does flow switching. Etc. Which all means, as I said in my last sentence above, that you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing - only worse. Your facts are not facts, the most you can accuse this video of is not explaining things fully. I guess the only question left is: What are you advertising? But I'll shut up after this, I'm obviously not jaded enough like you other people to just swallow this as advertisement. I expected a correct factual way of describing how the Internet works including IXPs, not an IXP advertisement. My expectations were obviously wrong from the response I'm seeing. I wouldn't call you jaded when you do what you accuse others of doing. And to be clear, you got a correct factual way of describing how the Internet works including IXPs. It may not have been complete, but if you honestly expected a complete description of the Internet in a film of /any/ length ... well, words fail me. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Scott Weeks wrote: When you select 'nominate your community' you're taken to a 'create an account' page. I doubt they'd consider Sunset Beach on the North Shore of Oahu Hawaii anyway. That's kinda out there... ;-) No but maybe Kailua (home of Obama's western whitehouse)... :) Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS hosting providers; that should be fun. Maybe it will encourage the incumbant ISP's to start offering users meaningful bgp communities since they won't be able to keep up with the abuse reports. David That's already here today. tv
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
Our typical gambling/casino customer has maybe 1 - 2 Mbps available to them. Pretty much anyone in the U.S. could DDoS them if they didn't have their HTTP/HTTPS traffic proxied and there are plenty more without any protection at all. Jeff On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tony Varriale tvarri...@comcast.net wrote: Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS hosting providers; that should be fun. Maybe it will encourage the incumbant ISP's to start offering users meaningful bgp communities since they won't be able to keep up with the abuse reports. David That's already here today. tv -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ddosprotection to find out about news, promotions, and (gasp!) system outages which are updated in real time. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to protect your booty.
Re: dark fiber
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On Feb 10, 2010, at 5:08 PM, James Jones wrote: I am doing some researchis there a way to find out where there is dark fiber and who own's it? You may be better off asking nznog if it's local to you (or your email). - Jared It is no longer local to me. Other wise I would have asked them :)
Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
Anyone have some insight on a good dual stack Linux (or BSD) router distro? Currently using IPCop but it lacks ipv6 support. I've used SmoothWall Express but not in some time and not sure how well it works with IPv6. Not looking for something huge, just something for the equivalent of a small branch office. Site to Site VPN support and NAT translation capability for a few public IP addresses to private addresses are the only requirements. Public or private responses are welcome! Thanks! Blake Pfankuch Network Engineer
Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
would pfsense work for you? On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Blake Pfankuch bpfank...@cpgreeley.com wrote: Anyone have some insight on a good dual stack Linux (or BSD) router distro? Currently using IPCop but it lacks ipv6 support. I've used SmoothWall Express but not in some time and not sure how well it works with IPv6. Not looking for something huge, just something for the equivalent of a small branch office. Site to Site VPN support and NAT translation capability for a few public IP addresses to private addresses are the only requirements. Public or private responses are welcome! Thanks! Blake Pfankuch Network Engineer
RE: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
Anyone have some insight on a good dual stack Linux (or BSD) router distro? Currently using IPCop but it lacks ipv6 support. I've used SmoothWall Express but not in some time and not sure how well it works with IPv6. Not looking for something huge, just something for the equivalent of a small branch office. Site to Site VPN support and NAT translation capability for a few public IP addresses to private addresses are the only requirements. Public or private responses are welcome! Not sure if they support IPV6 or not, but Imagestream makes Linux based routers, and everyone I've ever talked to that owns one has nothing bad to say about them.
Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
Sorry for the top post, BB won't let me punch this at the bottom. I believe 2.0 is in beta and supports ipv6, I don't know if beta is something you want to mess around with. The PF products have been bulletproof for quite a long time. -W --Original Message-- From: Bryan Irvine To: Blake Pfankuch Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability Sent: Feb 10, 2010 16:17 would pfsense work for you? On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Blake Pfankuch bpfank...@cpgreeley.com wrote: Anyone have some insight on a good dual stack Linux (or BSD) router distro? Currently using IPCop but it lacks ipv6 support. I've used SmoothWall Express but not in some time and not sure how well it works with IPv6. Not looking for something huge, just something for the equivalent of a small branch office. Site to Site VPN support and NAT translation capability for a few public IP addresses to private addresses are the only requirements. Public or private responses are welcome! Thanks! Blake Pfankuch Network Engineer Wade Blackwell Sent from Mobile 805-457-8825 X998 cupofcompassion.com Coffee that makes a difference
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
Are they going to use Google routers for the deployment? On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/google-plans-to-build-high-speed-fiber-optic-networks-update2-.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html What do folks think? Granted it's very early on, and g00g could decide to never leave the announce phase. - -- Charles N Wyble Linux Systems Engineer (818)280-7059 char...@knownelement.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktzF2sACgkQJmrRtQ6zKE91lwCgjdYmEewZtPb2iFM6VZMW5Xce ydkAoI+ycZQ1JYLoZt7yL04CliGXRLoc =4eps -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Blake Pfankuch bpfank...@cpgreeley.com wrote: Anyone have some insight on a good dual stack Linux (or BSD) router distro? Mikrotik RouterOS. It is based on Linux and a bit more feature-rich than some of the linux router distros I've tried such as IPCop. Licenses costs a few bucks but its worth it IMHO. Regards, Mark
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
There are some FTTH deployments in the US, like the well known FIOS to a number of lesser known municipal deployments in small towns. If you want to live in a house that is served in this way, how do you find it. I don't believe there is a FTTH field in MLS yet. Would be nice to have a google maps mashup, or similar... -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgp3NxpRBftSl.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Google to offer fiber to end users
They don't have a field in the MLS for that, but most people put the description FTTH in. There are quite a few communities with FTTH in the Wash DC metropolitan area that is not FIOS. Openband is one of them serving my house. The 100M fiber comes into a transition network converter and then to a Netgear. I doubt that any house would have FTTR (rooms). - Luan Nguyen Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC. -
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
Look, it's a very nice video, and I think it is useful and the creators should be complimented on their work. Overall it is something I would like to use to educate less IP-savvy folk. But, as a hyper-aware viewer I did detect a tone in favor of network neutrality type arguments- and I suppose that is OK. One thing I found that didn't match with my recollection is that it depicts IXP's as a response to private peering. My recollection was that while the earliest peering may have been some private peering, rapidly MAE-EAST etc. became points of major traffic sharing and large scale private peering/interconnects were a response to the issues at the various meeting points. Perhaps my recollection is incorrect? And aren't most exchanges today effectively private interconnects across a shared L2 device? On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote: On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Agree to disagree is right. The film is called The Internet Revealed: _A_film_about_IXPs_. You find it strange that the film would actually focus on IXPs. I find it strange that you couldn't figure this out before clicking play. If it would have said The internet revealed - an advertisement for IXPs I might have been expecting the thing I got. It's a matter of degree, right? However, I do believe you should know how the Internet works. And if you honestly believe packets in a single stream cannot travel over different paths, you clearly do not. And before you come back with BS about normal operation or such, realize your statement was far more factually incorrect than what the video said about private interconnects. I'm saying they don't normally do so, as one might believe when looking at the movie. Any core router ECMP algorithm that sprays L4 sessions like that will cause re-ordering which is bad, mkay. Yes, flow switching is common, but it is by no means guaranteed. Lots of people do per-packet across LAG bundles. The Internet topology changes do not wait until all TCP sessions are complete. Not everyone does flow switching. Etc. Which all means, as I said in my last sentence above, that you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing - only worse. Your facts are not facts, the most you can accuse this video of is not explaining things fully. I guess the only question left is: What are you advertising? But I'll shut up after this, I'm obviously not jaded enough like you other people to just swallow this as advertisement. I expected a correct factual way of describing how the Internet works including IXPs, not an IXP advertisement. My expectations were obviously wrong from the response I'm seeing. I wouldn't call you jaded when you do what you accuse others of doing. And to be clear, you got a correct factual way of describing how the Internet works including IXPs. It may not have been complete, but if you honestly expected a complete description of the Internet in a film of /any/ length ... well, words fail me. -- TTFN, patrick -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- dar...@bolding.org --
Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
On 2010-02-10 at 17:12:28 -0700, Blake Pfankuch wrote: Anyone have some insight on a good dual stack Linux (or BSD) router distro? Currently using IPCop but it lacks ipv6 support. I've used SmoothWall Express but not in some time and not sure how well it works with IPv6. Not looking for something huge, just something for the equivalent of a small branch office. Site to Site VPN support and NAT translation capability for a few public IP addresses to private addresses are the only requirements. Public or private responses are welcome! I'm not sure if the GUI is a requirement, but I'm a huge fan of Shorewall. It has support for both v4 and v6 along along with the usual router requirements. Since it's just a linux box with a few iptables rules, you can easily load openvpn, ipsec, quagga, etc... It's all text files and a 'shorewall start|stop|check' script. If you want something with a GUI, pfSense is your best bet, or you could use something like fwbuilder to build your iptables rules. -A
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM, David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote: Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS hosting providers; that should be fun. Maybe it will Enough to DoS hosting providers based on _current_ practices. If 1g FTTH catches on, hosting providers will probably want 10/100 Gigabit transfer technology in a short time. For now.. with 1gigabit residential connections, BCP 38 OUGHT to be Google's answer. If Google handles that properly, they _should_ make it mandatory that all traffic from residential customers be filtered, in all cases, in order to only forward packets with their legitimately assigned or registry-issued publicly verifiable IP prefix(es) in the IP source field. Must be mandatory even for 'resellers', otherwise there's no point. And Google should provide _reasonable_ response to investigate manual abuse reports to well-publicized points of contact which go directly to a well-staffed dedicated abuse team, with authority and a clear and expeditious resolution process, as a bare minimum, and in addition to any and all automatic measures. P.S. reasonable abuse response is not defined as a 4-day delayed answer to a 'help, no contact addresses will answer me' post on nanog (long after automated processes finally kicked in).. Reasonable response to a continuous 1gigabit flood or 100 kilopacket flood should be less than 12 hours. If they think things through carefully (rather than copy+paste Google groups e-mail abuse management),it'll probably be alright -- -J
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
I have gig copper ran all over my house. Handy for large file transfers. I have fios as well, and wish it was faster. (yes, all I know is it's a setting, it costs them nothing more) -- Joel Esler 302-223-5974 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Luan Nguyen l...@netcraftsmen.net wrote: They don't have a field in the MLS for that, but most people put the description FTTH in. There are quite a few communities with FTTH in the Wash DC metropolitan area that is not FIOS. Openband is one of them serving my house. The 100M fiber comes into a transition network converter and then to a Netgear. I doubt that any house would have FTTR (rooms). - Luan Nguyen Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC. -
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
But, as a hyper-aware viewer I did detect a tone in favor of network neutrality type arguments- and I suppose that is OK. is this a bug or a feature randy
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: But, as a hyper-aware viewer I did detect a tone in favor of network neutrality type arguments- and I suppose that is OK. is this a bug or a feature bug -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: dark fiber
FCC filings are rich with this type information. http://www.fcc.gov On 2/10/10, James Jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote: I am doing some researchis there a way to find out where there is dark fiber and who own's it? -- Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
What do folks think? I think it's a better use of their capital resources than paying big fat bonuses to big fat executives. Sounds like a well funded initiative that may provide an interesting platform to explore new technologies and develop a new array of applications. It would be nice to hear from local folks about how the WiFi experiment in Mountain View worked out. My .02 Jorge
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
Very cool production. For the duration and intended audience it looks like a nice and very clear documentary about how the net works. For insiders the last minute may feel borderline with science fiction and advertising but I see no evil. I think it was a great contribution from Euro-IX to relax the copyright. I can go with this video to my daughter's elementary school and the kids will most probably get it, and they won't give a squat about IP, BGP, ECMP, IXP oranyotherP. Relax, it's just a video Cheers Jorge
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: It would be nice to hear from local folks about how the WiFi experiment in Mountain View worked out. i use the mtview wifi almost everyday, and it works great the last metrics i saw were presented by tropos and indicated that about 600gb was transfered daily over the network (and this was sometime last summer iirc) -ck
Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
Have you checked Vyatta? HTH, Carlos.
RE: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability
I actually spaced about vyatta when I wrote this email. I have since been forcefully reminded. About 30 times :) In the process of testing it, however my main concern is some of the complexity of the config options. The GUI is a welcome addition since 4, however I still find it a bit lacking. I may go the vyatta route anyway based only on my sheer curiosity and future possible needs. Thank you all for your input! -Original Message- From: Carlos A. Carnero Delgado [mailto:carloscarn...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:19 PM To: Blake Pfankuch Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Linux Router distro's with dual stack capability Have you checked Vyatta? HTH, Carlos.
Re: Google to offer fiber to end users
This is actually good new's, considering this line of thought began to look promising in 2000, other unmentioned providers have business models not inclusive of this for another 10 years. I think this at least shows American private industry that we are at least attempting to catch up with Europe and China who already have very high speed networks in the most brutal of environments, I think all local governents should apply. -henry From: Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com To: Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com Cc: Nanog nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 6:39:14 PM Subject: Re: Google to offer fiber to end users What do folks think? I think it's a better use of their capital resources than paying big fat bonuses to big fat executives. Sounds like a well funded initiative that may provide an interesting platform to explore new technologies and develop a new array of applications. It would be nice to hear from local folks about how the WiFi experiment in Mountain View worked out. My .02 Jorge
