Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:01 AM, George Bonser  wrote:
> But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are
> producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of
> bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the
> end user.  If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the
> end user.

My friend, that is a straw man. ISPs have complete control over who
they peer with, the size of the peering pipe they accept and whether
that peering session is free or paid. If peering with Netflix will
cost you more than you gain, you just don't do it.

While there may well be advantages to compelling ISPs to accept
peering, that's an entirely different discussion. The network
neutrality debate is centered on what you do to packets while they're
within your network, not who you choose to directly connect to.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Juniper SSG-140, Monitoring and control the usage of the Internet

[Yasir Munir Abbasi]

Hi,

I have a SSG-140 Juniper Firewall. I need to ask, how can I Monitor the 
individual IP traffic? I mean I want to see who is taking more bandwidth.

Please help me out. Thanks

Yasir Munir Abbasi
Senior Network Engineer
EMail: y...@ciklum.net

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Sep 21, 2010, at 11:01 AM, George Bonser wrote:

> If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at some IX, the 
> content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the end user.


The counterargument is that the end-user has *already paid* the transit feeds 
for said content.

---
Roland Dobbins  // 

   Sell your computer and buy a guitar.

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Matthew Palmer]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:01:58PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are
> producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of
> bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the
> end user.

Yes they are -- content providers aren't getting their connections to the
Internet for free (and if they are, how can I get me some of that?).

> If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the
> end user.

Say wha?  ISPs don't *have* to peer at an IX; if they think that it's
cheaper to buy transit from someone than it is to peer, they're more than
capable of doing so.

> They then release a new version of something that uses more
> bandwidth (say, going to HD video and then maybe 3D HD at some point)
> which puts pressure on the ISPs network resources.  Do you then increase
> prices to the consumer in a highly competitive market and run the risk
> of driving your customers away, do you absorb the cost of required
> upgrades and run at a loss for a while only to see the applications
> increase in bandwidth requirements again?

The customer's requesting this traffic, therefore the customer needs a
bigger pipe, therefore the customer pays more.

> Do you try to get the content provider to pay for some of the "shipping"
> cost?

Why?  It was your customer who requested the traffic be delivered to them. 

- Matt

Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Positively Optimistic]

Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..

Pictures are welcomed...   off-list contact would be great.

Thanks

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[George Bonser]

> Only if the QoS is tilted in favor of the popular stuff.  The concern
> here isn't QoS in favor of the popular stuff... The concern here
> is QoS in favor of one particular brand of service X vs another.
> (e.g. Netflix vs. Hulu).
> 
> If QoS favors unpopular but more profitable services, it can make
> the user experience for those services significantly less crappy
> than the competing more popular services and actually drive
> shifts in consumer behavior towards the less popular services.
> 
> Of course, as this succeeds, it becomes self-defeating over the
> long run, but, only if your goal is to provide good service to your
> customers.

Absolutely agree.  This goes back to my original comment on the thread
in that having a content provider pay for higher priority gives a
financial incentive to the network to create congestion (or allow such
congestion to occur during the course of normal bandwidth consumption
increases over time) in order to collect that revenue.

But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are
producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of
bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the
end user.  If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the
end user.  They then release a new version of something that uses more
bandwidth (say, going to HD video and then maybe 3D HD at some point)
which puts pressure on the ISPs network resources.  Do you then increase
prices to the consumer in a highly competitive market and run the risk
of driving your customers away, do you absorb the cost of required
upgrades and run at a loss for a while only to see the applications
increase in bandwidth requirements again?  Do you try to get the content
provider to pay for some of the "shipping" cost?  

In a pure transit model, the content provider's expenses would go up if
they increased their bandwidth utilization which gave them a financial
incentive to be innovative in ways of delivering higher quality with the
lowest possible bandwidth consumption. As more people move to peering
over public IX points, the burden falls on the ISPs internal network to
deliver the goods and they have no control at all over the applications
themselves.  So bandwidth is practically "free" for the content provider
and not so free for the eyeball provider. So where a content provider
might be forced to upgrade from GigE to 10GigE links at exchange points
(maybe adding a blade to a chassis), a service provider might be faced
with congestion on potentially thousands of end user links and the gear
that interconnect the PoPs.

In that light I can see where they might want a fee.  But a better way
of looking at it is not in prioritizing anyone up, look at it the other
way.  Imagine an ISP says "if you don't pay us, we are going to
prioritize your traffic down".  So anyone who pays gets their traffic at
the normal default priority, those who don't pay get in the "space
available" line.  Now a content provider who does not pay the toll sees
a drop in users which equates to a possible drop in ad revenue.

George

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Robert Bonomi]

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org  Mon Sep 20 13:24:42 
> 2010
> From: William Herrin 
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:25:31 -0400
> Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
> To: Justin Horstman 
> Cc: NANOG 
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Justin Horstman
>  wrote:
> > Devil's Advocate here,
> >
> > What would you say to ISP A that provided similar
> > speeds as ISP B, but B took payments from content
> > providers and then provided the service for free?
> >
> > Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B,
> > which is free, and most people wouldn't know the difference.
>
> Justin,
>
> I'd say ISP B was incorrectly described. He doesn't provide service
> for free; he merely has a different customer. In ISP A, the end user
> is the customer but in ISP B, he isn't.

I'm tempted to point out that there have been severl attempts at the
ISP B model.   None of which are still in existance.  I take that back,
one or two of them may still exist, but they're not using that business
model any more.

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 9/20/10 11:38 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> Devil's Advocate here,
>> 
>> What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B,
>> but B took payments from content providers and then provided the
>> service for free?
>> 
>> Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free,
>> and most people wouldn't know the difference.
>> 
>> ~J
> 
> I would say that it's an interesting and unprecedented (to my
> knowledge) model.  Could be an interesting business plan.  I'm not
> sure if it's realistically viable, and it's certainly a risky
> proposition, but it's definitely unusual.

It is called netzero... state of the art 1998 business model...
advertisers pay for the right to spew crap at cheapskate modem users.

> Nathan
> 
> 
> 

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Nathan Eisenberg]

> Devil's Advocate here,
> 
> What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B, but B took
> payments from content providers and then provided the service for free?
> 
> Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free, and most
> people wouldn't know the difference.
> 
> ~J

I would say that it's an interesting and unprecedented (to my knowledge) model. 
 Could be an interesting business plan.  I'm not sure if it's realistically 
viable, and it's certainly a risky proposition, but it's definitely unusual.

Nathan

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Justin Horstman
 wrote:
> Devil's Advocate here,
>
> What would you say to ISP A that provided similar
> speeds as ISP B, but B took payments from content
> providers and then provided the service for free?
>
> Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B,
> which is free, and most people wouldn't know the difference.

Justin,

I'd say ISP B was incorrectly described. He doesn't provide service
for free; he merely has a different customer. In ISP A, the end user
is the customer but in ISP B, he isn't.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Joe Greco]

> > A real threat?  Oh, please, get real.  A _real_ threat is what happens as
> > cable and satellite providers keep jacking their rates, and more and more
> > of the "next generation" of television viewers stop subscribing to
> > conventional television distribution because they're able to get content
> > over the Internet.  That's a real threat.  When your HD television comes
> > with Netflix Live On Demand built in, even grandma will be clicking on
> > movies, I'll bet.
> 
> You lost me here, Joe. Threat to whom? How is it a bad thing that
> consumers gain additional choices for sourcing content they want?
> What is wrong with Grandma enjoying Netflix from her built-in interface
> in her television?

I'm sorry, "threat" in the primary ways that one could mean that, as
something that's destined to melt down Internet connections and slag
service provider infrastructure, and as a threat to existing revenue. 

*I* see it as perfectly reasonable that consumers should gain additional
choices for sourcing content that they want, and if you look at the
archives of NANOG, you'll find out I bring out stuff like this from time
to time when talking about the future of consumer Internet access.

Certain service providers, and I'm guessing most notably anyone with a
legacy infrastructure, companies such as at&t and Comcast, will view as
a threat any models where they are bypassed and used solely as a pipe. 
Pipe is commodity, pipe is not particularly profitable.  It's the content 
that generates profit, and I'm pretty sure that some executives somewhere
have done the math:

* Charge $39.99 a month for an Internet pipe, and no annual
  increases

* Charge $74.99 a month for basic Cable, plus upsell potential
  for PPV, set-top box/DVR rental, premium channels, etc. etc,
  and a 5%-10% annual increase
  
(http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/06/news/companies/cable_bill_cost_increase/index.htm)

I don't have easily verifiable numbers as to the profit in each of those
numbers, but it seems obvious that the one that's a bigger number and has
upsell potential is going to seem more attractive to service providers.

Now, the question you have to ask yourself is this, if you have a great
revenue stream in the form of cable TV subscribers, and you can slow the
adoption of a transition to Internet based TV by controlling and slowing
the growth of broadband speeds, would it make sense to do that?

My personal feeling is that the legacy providers feel threatened, and are
intent on dragging their heels into the modern age.

> >>> There is no reason to
> >>> expect that the "business model" will remain useful or that any
> >>> component of it, such as massive oversubscription, must necessarily
> >>> be correct and remain viable in its current form, just because it
> >>> worked a decade ago.
> >> 
> >> Well, I'm talking 10 years ago up until present.  How do you see the sub 
> >> model turning?  1:1?  If so, how?  And, still some profit?
> > 
> > If you want something interesting to ponder:
> > 
> > In the last ~10 years, wholesale bandwidth costs have fallen, what, from
> > maybe $100/mbit to $1/mbit?  I don't even know or care just how accurate
> > that is, but roughly speaking it's true.
> > 
> > In the last ~10 years, DSL and cable prices have stayed pretty much
> > consistent.  Our local cable connections have maybe doubled in speed in
> > that time.  DSL speeds haven't changed, except for Uverse, which is a
> > bit of an exception for a number of reasons.
> > 
> > Now obviously building the network costs something, but fifteen years
> > after they started providing service, I'm guessing that's been paid for.
> > They don't seem to be dumping lots of funds into increasing their network
> > speeds.  That suggests profit.  Do you have an alternative explanation?
> 
> Actually a lot of money goes into evolving technologies on the last-mile
> side. It's a bit of an arms race. For example, the reason your cable
> connections have doubled in speed is some pretty massive hardware
> upgrades to get from DOCSIS2 to DOCSIS3.

A, no.  DOCSIS2.  And the last speed increase was some years ago.
But what's a mere doubling?  Look at other technology:

In 2000, 100Mbps was "fast" and 1000baseT was bleeding edge brand new.
In 2005, 1000baseT was commonplace and we were working on 10GbaseT.
In 2010, 10GbaseT is now "fast" and now 100GbaseT is bleeding edge brand
new.

Approximate factor: 100x.

In 2000, 80GB was a very large hard drive.
In 2005, 500GB was a very large hard drive.
In 2010, 3TB is a very large hard drive.

Approximate factor: 37x.

In 2000, a 1000MHz single-core CPU was a very fast CPU.
In 2010, a 2500MHz 8-core CPU is a very fast CPU.

Approximate factor: 20x.

But fine, let's pretend for a moment that there's something special and
magical about last-mile technology.  Let's just look around at the rest
of the world.

Sweden: In Sweden, household broadband is mainly available through cab

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Justin Horstman]

> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:43 AM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
> 
> 
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Tony Varriale
>  wrote:
> >>> Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
> >>
> >> We'll disagree then.  Oversub makes access affordable.
> >
> > Sure, at 10:1. At 100:1, oversub makes the service perform like crap.
> > With QOS, it still performs like crap. The difference is that the
> > popular stuff is modestly less crappy while all the not-as-popular
> > stuff goes from crappy to non-functional.
> >
> Only if the QoS is tilted in favor of the popular stuff.  The concern
> here isn't QoS in favor of the popular stuff... The concern here
> is QoS in favor of one particular brand of service X vs another.
> (e.g. Netflix vs. Hulu).
> 
> If QoS favors unpopular but more profitable services, it can make
> the user experience for those services significantly less crappy
> than the competing more popular services and actually drive
> shifts in consumer behavior towards the less popular services.
> 
> Of course, as this succeeds, it becomes self-defeating over the
> long run, but, only if your goal is to provide good service to your
> customers.
> 
> If your goal is to keep your customers spending $minimal per month
> and stay attached to your service while using QoS payments from
> content providers to drive much larger margins, then, you can
> make a circuit through the content providers watching each
> one's popularity wax and wane as you screw with their QoS
> based on the money you get.
> 
> This is very bad for the consumer and, IMHO, should not be allowed.
> 
> > In my career I've encountered many QOS implementations. Only one of
> > them did more good than harm: a college customer of mine had a T3's
> > worth of demand but was only willing to pay for a pair of T1s. In
> > other words, the *customer* intentionally chose to operate with a
> > badly saturated pipe. QOS targetted only at peer to peer brought the
> > rest of the uses back to a more or less tolerable level of
> > performance.
> >
> You are still making the mistake of assuming that the ISP is interested
> primarily in providing good service to their customers. When you move
> this from customer-oriented good service model to profit-oriented
> model built around keeping the pain threshold just barely within
> the consumer's tolerance, it becomes an entirely different game.
> 
> Owen
> 

Devil's Advocate here, 

What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B, but B took 
payments from content providers and then provided the service for free?

Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free, and most 
people wouldn't know the difference.

~J

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Tony Varriale  wrote:
>>> Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
>> 
>> We'll disagree then.  Oversub makes access affordable.
> 
> Sure, at 10:1. At 100:1, oversub makes the service perform like crap.
> With QOS, it still performs like crap. The difference is that the
> popular stuff is modestly less crappy while all the not-as-popular
> stuff goes from crappy to non-functional.
> 
Only if the QoS is tilted in favor of the popular stuff.  The concern
here isn't QoS in favor of the popular stuff... The concern here
is QoS in favor of one particular brand of service X vs another.
(e.g. Netflix vs. Hulu).

If QoS favors unpopular but more profitable services, it can make
the user experience for those services significantly less crappy
than the competing more popular services and actually drive
shifts in consumer behavior towards the less popular services.

Of course, as this succeeds, it becomes self-defeating over the
long run, but, only if your goal is to provide good service to your
customers.

If your goal is to keep your customers spending $minimal per month
and stay attached to your service while using QoS payments from
content providers to drive much larger margins, then, you can
make a circuit through the content providers watching each
one's popularity wax and wane as you screw with their QoS
based on the money you get.

This is very bad for the consumer and, IMHO, should not be allowed.

> In my career I've encountered many QOS implementations. Only one of
> them did more good than harm: a college customer of mine had a T3's
> worth of demand but was only willing to pay for a pair of T1s. In
> other words, the *customer* intentionally chose to operate with a
> badly saturated pipe. QOS targetted only at peer to peer brought the
> rest of the uses back to a more or less tolerable level of
> performance.
> 
You are still making the mistake of assuming that the ISP is interested
primarily in providing good service to their customers. When you move
this from customer-oriented good service model to profit-oriented
model built around keeping the pain threshold just barely within
the consumer's tolerance, it becomes an entirely different game.

Owen

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

>>> Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
>> 
>> We'll disagree then.  Oversub makes access affordable.
> 
> We don't disagree.  Of course oversub makes access affordable.  The point
> here is that carriers aren't willing to commit to supporting some level
> of service.  Many people have recognized that a lack of net neutrality is
> an incentive for service providers to either tacitly allow congestion
> points to evolve in their networks, or, worse, deliberately engineer such
> a situation, with dollar signs flashing in Ed Whitacre's eyes at the idea
> of being able to bill a third party.  That's pretty much the opposite end
> of the spectrum from committing to supporting some level of service.
> 
Exactly... Have we learned nothing from the Enron experience in
California?

>>> ..with the scary boogeyman of evil illegal P2P filesharing
>> 
>> That just tips the money in the wrong direction.  And it's a real threat 
>> (amongst others)...not just that deadly clown hiding under your bed.
> 
> A real threat?  Oh, please, get real.  A _real_ threat is what happens as
> cable and satellite providers keep jacking their rates, and more and more
> of the "next generation" of television viewers stop subscribing to
> conventional television distribution because they're able to get content
> over the Internet.  That's a real threat.  When your HD television comes
> with Netflix Live On Demand built in, even grandma will be clicking on
> movies, I'll bet.
> 
You lost me here, Joe. Threat to whom? How is it a bad thing that
consumers gain additional choices for sourcing content they want?
What is wrong with Grandma enjoying Netflix from her built-in interface
in her television?
> 
>>> There is no reason to
>>> expect that the "business model" will remain useful or that any
>>> component of it, such as massive oversubscription, must necessarily
>>> be correct and remain viable in its current form, just because it
>>> worked a decade ago.
>> 
>> Well, I'm talking 10 years ago up until present.  How do you see the sub 
>> model turning?  1:1?  If so, how?  And, still some profit?
> 
> If you want something interesting to ponder:
> 
> In the last ~10 years, wholesale bandwidth costs have fallen, what, from
> maybe $100/mbit to $1/mbit?  I don't even know or care just how accurate
> that is, but roughly speaking it's true.
> 
> In the last ~10 years, DSL and cable prices have stayed pretty much
> consistent.  Our local cable connections have maybe doubled in speed in
> that time.  DSL speeds haven't changed, except for Uverse, which is a
> bit of an exception for a number of reasons.
> 
> Now obviously building the network costs something, but fifteen years
> after they started providing service, I'm guessing that's been paid for.
> They don't seem to be dumping lots of funds into increasing their network
> speeds.  That suggests profit.  Do you have an alternative explanation?
> 
Actually a lot of money goes into evolving technologies on the last-mile
side. It's a bit of an arms race. For example, the reason your cable
connections have doubled in speed is some pretty massive hardware
upgrades to get from DOCSIS2 to DOCSIS3.

There's also going to be quite a bit of investment to get the DSL
networks ready for IPv6. The last mile remains an expensive place
to play with minimal margins. The costs there have little to do with
wholesale bandwidth pricing where your statements about once
the network is built it costs less to keep it running are much more
accurate.

> I'm looking at the current scenario, and what I see are monopolies who
> are afraid of the future.  at&t is already witnessing the destruction of
> its legacy telephony business, the demise of ridiculous long distance 
> rates, etc.  The Comcasts of the world have got to recognize that the
> ability for customers to avoid paying a monthly cable fee by getting
> video over the net is bad for business.  So you have cable and telco,
> both telecom businesses with Something To Lose, both of whom incidentally
> are also the gatekeepers of residential Internet service.
> 
Yes and no. To some extent, I think the smarter ones (I won't name
names on either side in this message) actually see this as an
opportunity to simplify their network and treat IP as a unified delivery
platform for all of those traditionally disparate services. Yes, there's
got to be some fear, but, a smart and sustainable business turns
fear into opportunity.

> The killer point, though, is when you look at what's happening in other
> areas of the world.  You can see broadband Internet services elsewhere
> evolving.  You can even see rogues here in the US (I'm looking at you,
> Sonic!) who are pushing the envelope.
> 
> The reality is that the world is changing, and subscribers are going to
> be pushing more and more data, often without even recognizing that fact.
> 
Yep. Especially when we get the end-to-end model back and subscribers
are abl

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[JC Dill]

Joe Greco wrote:

In the last ~10 years, wholesale bandwidth costs have fallen, what, from
maybe $100/mbit to $1/mbit?  I don't even know or care just how accurate
that is, but roughly speaking it's true.

In the last ~10 years, DSL and cable prices have stayed pretty much
consistent.  Our local cable connections have maybe doubled in speed in
that time.  DSL speeds haven't changed, except for Uverse, which is a
bit of an exception for a number of reasons.

Now obviously building the network costs something, but fifteen years
after they started providing service, I'm guessing that's been paid for.
They don't seem to be dumping lots of funds into increasing their network
speeds.  That suggests profit.  Do you have an alternative explanation?


Physics.  The reason consumer connection speeds haven't increased is 
pure physics, they haven't figured out how to get packets to flow any 
faster over the last mile on the existing copper network, without 
spending megabucks to trench fiber to the home.  The Telcos are afraid 
to spend the CapX to proactively trench in new technology (e.g. fiber) 
only to find that a new technology (e.g. 5G or 6G cell service) delivers 
faster bandwidth over some other path, and whoever trenches in the fiber 
goes BK before they can recover their costs.  Anyone remember Ricochet?  
They spent a fortune on putting in a wireless network in Silicon Valley 
that was over-run by the cellular networks moving into broadband, 
providing faster and more ubiquitous service, service that worked while 
you were in-motion (Ricochet didn't work on a bus or train, it wasn't 
designed to hand off to neighboring cells).  Buh By Richchet.


Meanwhile, consumer utilization of their available last-mile bandwidth 
has gone up.  10 years ago how many people were watching downloaded 
movies, exchanging software with P2P, using skype video, etc? 

# Feb. 12, 2008. In a net neutrality filing with the FCC, Comcast stated 
(p. 13, footnote 31) that "[o]n average, each Comcast High-Speed 
Internet customer uses more than 40% more bandwidth today than one year 
ago."

(Cite:  )

Anyone have handy graphs showing end user bandwidth consumption on 
broadband connections over time, say from ~2000-2010?


A big part of the cost in providing service to end consumers is customer 
support and install costs, not the cost to move bits.  Wild-ass 
speculation:  This is why your base cable bill, your base broadband 
bill, your base POTS phone bill, your base cell phone bill, etc. hovers 
in the $20-30/month range, it simply costs that much to provide the 
people network (customer support, truck roll technical support, etc.) to 
support the customer, even though the underlying network cost to deliver 
the actual product is far less.  (This is also why many systems dropped 
per-minute and per-call billing for local and in-country calls, because 
the cost to measure and bill for, and deal with customer complaints 
about, these metrics aren't worth doing - it's cheaper to raise the 
price slightly and give the user "unlimited" calling.)  Of course, I 
could be wrong, but I know which way I'd bet on this question - do you 
want to give me odds?  :-)


jc

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Tony Varriale  wrote:
>> Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
>
> We'll disagree then.  Oversub makes access affordable.

Sure, at 10:1. At 100:1, oversub makes the service perform like crap.
With QOS, it still performs like crap. The difference is that the
popular stuff is modestly less crappy while all the not-as-popular
stuff goes from crappy to non-functional.

In my career I've encountered many QOS implementations. Only one of
them did more good than harm: a college customer of mine had a T3's
worth of demand but was only willing to pay for a pair of T1s. In
other words, the *customer* intentionally chose to operate with a
badly saturated pipe. QOS targetted only at peer to peer brought the
rest of the uses back to a more or less tolerable level of
performance.

I note that I lost the customer the next year anyway. Tolerable !=
pleasant. They were unhappy with the service, even if it was their own
fault.


I might be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if "pick your oversub
level" was part of the signup process, but it isn't. You hide that
decision where your customers can't even find out what decision you
made.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

RE: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Nathan Eisenberg]

If your AD domain is a subdomain, like corp.job.com, you can always delegate 
the subdomain's name service to the MS DNS servers from the BIND servers.  That 
way, you don't have to make huge changes to your existing environment.

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Mikelson [mailto:tmikel...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:05 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?
> 
> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the Networking
> team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems team that they will
> be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed over to the
> Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason given is that the
> Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft DNS service and
> dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know the veracity
> of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a situation like
> this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already working.
> 
> 

Re: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Jack Bates]

On 9/20/2010 9:13 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:

You MAY be able to duplicate all the records in BIND, but expect random
things to not work, and have to do a bunch of research figuring out what
DNS query it's doing, and what the proper answer is.



The AD server will populate out the necessary records to the dDNS 
server. I setup an empty base dDNS subdomain and everything was 
populated out by the AD server. Handles a long list of SRV records, and 
v4/v6 forwards were automatically populated for both servers and clients.


I have a very basic setup, which works perfectly for my needs. As to if 
more advanced features are broken by using BIND, I have no idea.



Jack

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Michael Sokolov
 wrote:
> Ditto with CLECs like Covad-now-MegaPath: even though they don't get
> access to the FTTN infrastructure, no telco is evicting their legacy CO
> presence.  Therefore, if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber
> speeds and prefers the slower all-copper solution, I can still get SDSL
> from the CLEC, and the ILEC (AT&T) will be required to provide a direct
> copper pair from that CLEC's cage inside the CO to the customer premise,
> no matter how much they wish for these copper pairs to die.

As I understand it, that's not quite true. The ILEC is only required
to provide a copper pair to a CLEC as an unbundled element IF ONE IS
AVAILABLE. The ILEC has no deadline for installing new copper for the
CLEC, only the requirement that the CLEC gets the next one available.
If you think about it, it's obvious why: unbundling was intended to
require ILECs to share in the businesses in which they already engage,
not enter or remain in businesses they don't want to be in.

And of course when Verizon installs Fios, they remove the old copper
pairs so that they're no longer available for use. After all, Verizon
wants to retire the copper infrastructure as quickly as possible so
they can quit maintaining it.

There are some games one can play. You can order an then cancel a
service from the ILEC that would require them to install new copper,
and that'll sometimes induce the copper installation that the CLEC
needs to have their outstanding order. But that doesn't always work.
It gets...  labyrinthine.


> if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber
> speeds and prefers the slower all-copper solution,

Of course, if the companies were required to unbundle *all* of the
physical path elements (including fiber) we might not need a network
neutrality debate. Sadly, the cable companies' technology does not
easily unbundle and it would probably be unfair to require the telcos
to unbundle when the same burden isn't placed on the cable companies.

So, the debate moves to a different chokepoint where both technologies
can be treated the same: packet treatment.


Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

RE: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Jamie Bowden]

Our Corporate Overlords run DNS on a mixed environment of Windows and
Other (mostly other).  Back when we were still a small company, we moved
our DNS from BIND to Windows for ease of administration.  It CAN be
done, but it's a huge PITA since AD does things in DNS that aren't
standard (and in fact, violate it willfully and knowingly to make MS
Kerberos bits happy).  I had my Unix servers acting as secondary servers
to serve their clients off the AD primary servers, and that worked just
fine.  Windows Server 2003 and later are extremely stable and we've had
no issues with them taking over DNS duties (I've long since just pointed
all my Unix boxes at the Windows servers for DNS since the Windows
servers have been so stable and reliable).

Jamie

-Original Message-
From: Tom Mikelson [mailto:tmikel...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:05 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems
team
that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be
changed
over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft
DNS
service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not
know
the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with
a
situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is
already
working.

Re: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[JoeSox]

I have seen BIND to MS DNS zone transfers work fine before.

--
Thanks, Joe




On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L
 wrote:
> Active directly is tied fairly closely to it's DNS.
>
> For example, if a client needs to find a Domain Controller, it does a
> DNS 'SRV' query for (I think, I'm doing this from memory)
> '_LDAP._TCP.domain.com/org/net/whatever'. I assume other 'services' like
> LDAP are 'advertised' (if you can call it that) via DNS as well.
>
> You MAY be able to duplicate all the records in BIND, but expect random
> things to not work, and have to do a bunch of research figuring out what
> DNS query it's doing, and what the proper answer is.
>
> Ken Matlock
> Network Analyst
> Exempla Healthcare
> (303) 467-4671
> matlo...@exempla.org
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Mikelson [mailto:tmikel...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:05 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?
>
> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
> Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems
> team
> that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be
> changed
> over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
> given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft
> DNS
> service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not
> know
> the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with
> a
> situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is
> already
> working.
>
>

Re: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Jeff Kell]

 That has been the stock MS answer for a long time, but at least W2K8 makes a 
few
concessions.  Technet has some references on making "bind" configurations to 
work with
AD, specifically the statement (and here's perhaps the best place to start...):

> When a domain controller is promoted, a file named NETLOGON.DNS is created in 
> the
> %systemroot%\system32\config folder. This file contains all of the DNS 
> entries the
> domain controller would register. This file can be used to aid in statically 
> entering
> Active Directory DNS records.

There are still "assumptions" that not only will MS provide DNS, but also DHCP, 
and even
if you poke both of them properly with non-MS tools, you still have to insure 
that your
naming conventions are going to work together properly (e.g., search suffix on 
DNS
lookups to resolve domain resources when Windows clients will inevitably use an
unqualified \\servername\sharename to access things).  Get your windows folks 
in the
habit of fully-qualifying servernames.domain.tld instead.

Jeff

On 9/20/2010 10:04 AM, Tom Mikelson wrote:
> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
> Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems team
> that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
> over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
> given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft DNS
> service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know
> the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a
> situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already
> working.
>

RE: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Matlock, Kenneth L]

Active directly is tied fairly closely to it's DNS.

For example, if a client needs to find a Domain Controller, it does a
DNS 'SRV' query for (I think, I'm doing this from memory)
'_LDAP._TCP.domain.com/org/net/whatever'. I assume other 'services' like
LDAP are 'advertised' (if you can call it that) via DNS as well.

You MAY be able to duplicate all the records in BIND, but expect random
things to not work, and have to do a bunch of research figuring out what
DNS query it's doing, and what the proper answer is.

Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
Exempla Healthcare
(303) 467-4671
matlo...@exempla.org



-Original Message-
From: Tom Mikelson [mailto:tmikel...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:05 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems
team
that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be
changed
over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft
DNS
service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not
know
the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with
a
situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is
already
working.

Re: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2010-09-20 16:04, Tom Mikelson wrote:
> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
> Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems team
> that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
> over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
> given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft DNS
> service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know
> the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a
> situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already
> working.

Use the Force: google(Active Directory BIND)

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd316373.aspx

which is a document from 2001 btw

Greets,
 Jeroen

Re: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[John Peach]

It does not need MS DNS. $dayjob uses Infoblox appliances (BIND under
the hood) for DNS and it works fine with AD. You just need to make sure
you allow the Domain Controllers to do dynamic updates (AD uses SRV
records).


On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:04:49 -0600
Tom Mikelson  wrote:

> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
> Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems
> team that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will
> be changed over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain
> controllers.  The reason given is that the Active Directory
> implementation requires the Microsoft DNS service and dynamic DNS.
> Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know the veracity of
> these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a situation
> like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already
> working.


-- 
John

RE: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Matthew Huff]

Microsoft Active directory absolutely needs dynamic DNS. However, I know that 
it has been integrated with bind, so I don't believe it needs Microsoft DNS. A 
common procedure is to delegate a subdomain to the microsoft dns server and let 
the Active Directory forest be built within that environment.




Matthew Huff   | One Manhattanville Rd
OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
http://www.ox.com  | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff  | Fax:   914-460-4139


> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Mikelson [mailto:tmikel...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:05 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?
> 
> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
> Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems team
> that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
> over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
> given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft DNS
> service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know
> the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a
> situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already
> working.
<>

Re: Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Jared Mauch]

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd316373.aspx

On Sep 20, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Tom Mikelson wrote:

> Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
> Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems team
> that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
> over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
> given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft DNS
> service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know
> the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a
> situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already
> working.

Active Directory requires Microsoft DNS?

[Tom Mikelson]

Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering.  We are now being told by the Systems team
that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers.  The reason
given is that the Active Directory implementation requires the Microsoft DNS
service and dynamic DNS.  Not being a Microsoft administrator I do not know
the veracity of these claims.  Anyone out there had any experiences with a
situation like this?  I am a bit leery of changing something that is already
working.

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Joe Greco]

> > Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
> 
> We'll disagree then.  Oversub makes access affordable.

We don't disagree.  Of course oversub makes access affordable.  The point
here is that carriers aren't willing to commit to supporting some level
of service.  Many people have recognized that a lack of net neutrality is
an incentive for service providers to either tacitly allow congestion
points to evolve in their networks, or, worse, deliberately engineer such
a situation, with dollar signs flashing in Ed Whitacre's eyes at the idea
of being able to bill a third party.  That's pretty much the opposite end
of the spectrum from committing to supporting some level of service.

> >..with the scary boogeyman of evil illegal P2P filesharing
> 
> That just tips the money in the wrong direction.  And it's a real threat 
> (amongst others)...not just that deadly clown hiding under your bed.

A real threat?  Oh, please, get real.  A _real_ threat is what happens as
cable and satellite providers keep jacking their rates, and more and more
of the "next generation" of television viewers stop subscribing to
conventional television distribution because they're able to get content
over the Internet.  That's a real threat.  When your HD television comes
with Netflix Live On Demand built in, even grandma will be clicking on
movies, I'll bet.

> > Consider: the practical reality is that we're seeing more and more
> > gizmos that do more and more network things.  We're going to see
> > DVR's downloading content over the Internet, you'll see your nav
> > system downloading map updates over the Internet, these are all
> > "new" devices that didn't exist ~10 years ago in their current form,
> > and they're changing consumer usage patterns.
> 
> Yeah, I think we all know and see that stuff.  But, unless some 
> technological model changes bit pricing, the premise of oversub still wins. 
> Going 1:1 today (or in the near future) makes no sense unless you layer 
> something on top (advertising, qos, buttercream icing?).

Why is it that you are talking about 1:1?

> >There is no reason to
> > expect that the "business model" will remain useful or that any
> > component of it, such as massive oversubscription, must necessarily
> > be correct and remain viable in its current form, just because it
> > worked a decade ago.
> 
> Well, I'm talking 10 years ago up until present.  How do you see the sub 
> model turning?  1:1?  If so, how?  And, still some profit?

If you want something interesting to ponder:

In the last ~10 years, wholesale bandwidth costs have fallen, what, from
maybe $100/mbit to $1/mbit?  I don't even know or care just how accurate
that is, but roughly speaking it's true.

In the last ~10 years, DSL and cable prices have stayed pretty much
consistent.  Our local cable connections have maybe doubled in speed in
that time.  DSL speeds haven't changed, except for Uverse, which is a
bit of an exception for a number of reasons.

Now obviously building the network costs something, but fifteen years
after they started providing service, I'm guessing that's been paid for.
They don't seem to be dumping lots of funds into increasing their network
speeds.  That suggests profit.  Do you have an alternative explanation?

I'm looking at the current scenario, and what I see are monopolies who
are afraid of the future.  at&t is already witnessing the destruction of
its legacy telephony business, the demise of ridiculous long distance 
rates, etc.  The Comcasts of the world have got to recognize that the
ability for customers to avoid paying a monthly cable fee by getting
video over the net is bad for business.  So you have cable and telco,
both telecom businesses with Something To Lose, both of whom incidentally
are also the gatekeepers of residential Internet service.

The killer point, though, is when you look at what's happening in other
areas of the world.  You can see broadband Internet services elsewhere
evolving.  You can even see rogues here in the US (I'm looking at you,
Sonic!) who are pushing the envelope.

The reality is that the world is changing, and subscribers are going to
be pushing more and more data, often without even recognizing that fact.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

RE: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

[Dennis Burgess]

UBNT is fine if you need a bridged network, using them in junction to 
MikroTik's RouterBOARDs will give you all of the tools you will need to be 
successful as well.   Routing, traffic shaping etc.Contact me off-list if 
you need pre-built / configured solutions with either hardware.  


---
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"


-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:33 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

Another +1 UBNT. We're using the NanoStation2 to deliver 802.11g to remote 
camps in Afghanistan. They advertise a 60 deg LOS signal but it seems to do 
much better. Supposedly they will reach 15 km but we've never tried to use them 
that far. What's really neat is they come ready to mount with some heavy duty 
zip ties.

I'm also a fan of the Cisco Aironet 1310, but we're using the built-in 
omni-directional antennae so the range isn't as nice as the Ubiquity and they 
cost about five times as much. The terminations are RG6 and the mount kit comes 
with the cable and weather strips to protect the terminations. The Ubiquity by 
comparison is all PoE so you'll want to use loom to protect the ethernet cable.

I would venture to say that the UBNT omni-directional devices (eg.
PicoStation2HP) have better range than the aforementioned Aironet 1310.

Jeff


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Gammons wrote:
>
>> Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com
>>
>> I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety 
>> of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost 
>> effective and reliable last mile solution.
>>
>> IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is 
>> the only way to go in rural.  The benefits of licensed frequencies 
>> are "typically" lost in rural environments as there aren't many 
>> contending devices.  The above N based equipment performs roughly at 
>> the same level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax 
>> chipsets.  Of course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has 
>> it's own requirements and challenges to be considered.
>
> +1 UBNT.
>
> Can not beat the price/performance of the equipment. ($160 for a pair of 
> dual-pol 802.11n equipment).
>
> - Jared
>
>
>
>



--
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus 
Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions