[Nanog-futures] admins@ autoresponse
[pardon for the use of futures as meta, but no other way to be sure it doesn't lay unattended in a filter somewheres] From http://www.nanog.org/governance/communications/ You can reach all of us at adm...@nanog.org. In response to message last night sent from my nanog@ list-subscribed address: Subject: Your message to Admins awaits moderator approval [snip] The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list [snip] ...if this is intended behavior then you want to customize the responder to make it look more like that, otherwise it looks like the community can't reach the communications committee unless they are pre-approved. Cheers! Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
105/8 allocated to AfriNIC
Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of a /8 IPv4 block to AfriNIC in November 2010: 105/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt The complete list of IPv4 /8s allocated so far this year is: 1/8 14/8 27/8 31/8 36/8 42/8 49/8 50/8 101/8 105/8 107/8 176/8 177/8 181/8 223/8 Please update your filters as appropriate. The IANA free pool contains 11 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN
Network Planning Tool
In terms of network planning tools three names appear to be at the top of the list namely: - Cariden MATE - Opnet SP Guru Network Planner - WANDL IP/MPLS View We are currently considering all of them and I would appreciate any feedback from those who have experience with any/all of them (whether on or off-list). Thanks.
Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
2010/11/17 Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com: Forgot to include that the 18 minute reference is on page 244. -J From Renesys blog: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/chinas-18-minute-mystery.shtml -- Saluti Mirko
Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions*
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Dear Peter, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? 32bit counters run over with 100mbit in less than 5 minutes. solutions: run poller every 1 minute update rrd's heartbeat or use 64bit counters Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Sounds like you're using 32bit counters, create a new graph of the interface using 64bit counters in cacti. -wil On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Peter Rudasingwa peter.rudasin...@altechstream.rw wrote: Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions*
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Try using 64 bit couters, you are running into a rounding error. --- Brian Raaen Network Architech On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Peter Rudasingwa wrote: Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions*
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
You need to use 64 bit counters. Here you can find more info: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_q_and_a_item09186a00800b69ac.shtml The problem is that at 150 mbps 32 bit counters roll-over at least twice in the 5 min interval. Warm regards Carlos Martinez LACNIC Uruguay On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Peter Rudasingwa peter.rudasin...@altechstream.rw wrote: Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions* -- -- = Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://cagnazzo.name =
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Do you have it set for 64 bit counters? Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Peter Rudasingwa peter.rudasin...@altechstream.rw To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 14:24:22 GMT+00:00 Subject: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions*
Facebook and Yahoo contact
Hi, Is there anyone from Facebook and Yahoo dealing with hosting their mirror site in IX. Please contact off list. Thanks Rom
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Sounds like you need to use the 64 bit templates as your data may be rolling over. -b -- Bill Blackford Network Engineer Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Thanks to all. I used the 64 bit template and it's now working fine. Peter R. Bill Blackford wrote: Sounds like you need to use the 64 bit templates as your data may be rolling over. -b -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions*
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Might also look into the fix64bit plugin for cacti to modify your existing 32bit graphs so you don't have recreate them and all the extra changes you may need such as adding to graph trees, updating reports, thresholds, etc. --Original Message-- From: Peter Rudasingwa To: Bill Blackford To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring Sent: Nov 29, 2010 9:50 AM Thanks to all. I used the 64 bit template and it's now working fine. Peter R. Bill Blackford wrote: Sounds like you need to use the 64 bit templates as your data may be rolling over. -b -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions* Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Targeted Phishing Attack
Last week, the security team at Return Path discovered that we were the source of a list of addresses used in a targeted phishing attack against a number of ESPs. We're sharing the results of our investigation with the larger community, in order to help others avoid similar attacks. I'm including NANOG in this distribution because, even though this particular attack was focused on mail operators, the same tactics could work equally well on network operators. http://www.returnpath.net/blog/received/2010/11/phishing-attack-an-open-letter-to-the-anti-spam-and-mailbox-operator-community/ -- J.D. Falk Internet Standards Governance Return Path
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Also isn't http://forums.cacti.net/ more appropriate then nanog? Ryan Pavely Director Research And Development Net Access Corporation http://www.nac.net/ On 11/29/2010 9:24 AM, Peter Rudasingwa wrote: Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs?
Re: Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
Also don't forget to change to SNMP v2 or higher since there is no such thing as 64 bit counters in the SNMP v1 MIB. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Peter Rudasingwa peter.rudasin...@altechstream.rw wrote: Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 *Affordable Broadband Solutions* -- Mike Bartz m...@bartzfamily.net
Re: Jumbo frame Question
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:24:57 -0500 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: the reason ieee has not allowed upping of the frame size is that the crc is at the prudent limits at 1500. yes, we do another check above the frame (uh, well, udp4 may not), but the ether spec can not count on that. I wasn't there, but I paid some attention to the discussion of jumbos when it would frequently pop up on comp.dcom.lans.ethernet. Rich Seifert, who was involved, would jeer jumbos and point out the potential problems. A search in that group with his name and jumbo frames should bring up some useful background. In a nutshell, as I recall, one of the prime motivating factors for not standardizing jumbos was interoperability issues with the installed base, which penalizes other parts of the network (e.g. routers having to perform fragmentation) for the benefit of a select few (e.g. modern server to server comms). I also seem to recall Rich had also once said something to the effect that it might have been nice if larger frames were supported at the onset of Ethernet's initial development, but alas, such is life and it's simply too late now. The installed base defeats us. John
Re: experience with equinix exchange
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 04:09:55PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote: According to pch they don't run most of them. I would say they run very few compared to how many there actually are. Uhh... Reality check, with the SD acquisition Equinix controls the VAST majority of the IX traffic in the US. The only other IX's doing anything even approaching interesting traffic are NOTA (in Miami), NYIIX (in New York), SIX (in Seattle), and the former AtlantaIX (now Telx TIE) in Atlanta. All are regional players, with very incomplete coverage of the important regions in the US, so if you're peering in the US you're almost guaranteed to be dealing with Equinix. Nobody else is even noteworthy, you can probably do more traffic than the other IX's by leaving a bit torrent client running overnight. Anyone can throw a Linksys switch in their basement and call themselves an exchange point, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to show up and peer there. -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: experience with equinix exchange
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 04:09:55PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote: According to pch they don't run most of them. I would say they run very few compared to how many there actually are. Uhh... Reality check, with the SD acquisition Equinix controls the VAST majority of the IX traffic in the US. The only other IX's doing anything even approaching interesting traffic are NOTA (in Miami), NYIIX (in New York), SIX (in Seattle), and the former AtlantaIX (now Telx TIE) in Atlanta. All are regional players, with very incomplete coverage of the important regions in the US, so if you're peering in the US you're almost guaranteed to be dealing with Equinix. I might not state things quite as strongly as RAS, but yes, in essence, that's how things stand. There's a very long tail to the IXP curve, but nearly all of the traffic volume in North America is going through Equinix-operated facilities, at this point. RAS has mentioned the main other ones, and I'd probably only add Toronto and CoreSite to the list. -Bill PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere. While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of options down to fewer rather than more. e.g. the positive result and the path to advancement of this draft would be when the document produces a solid recommendation on address part naming rather than several of them. Several recomendations do not get us further down the road to a common set of terminology. thanks joel
Re: Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/29/2010 11:59, Joel Jaeggli wrote: | Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages | across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere. | | While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism | and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of | options down to fewer rather than more. e.g. the positive result and the | path to advancement of this draft would be when the document produces a | solid recommendation on address part naming rather than several of them. | | Several recomendations do not get us further down the road to a common | set of terminology. If you're looking for serious feedback: 1. Any term using 1 word is out 2. Any word using 2 syllables is out 3. I've never had a problem calling it field, I think that 5952 is a perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. :) hth, Doug - -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJM9A5mAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEGxEH/3rs0yOYma3fWHnHc20+fxPu CTcziNHpjjkvI0bAv0V+NFAxXO350iyv18KqufyEvCuGbkT/AETfOLAr+QsDa09X vvE7/sO+XEBNuGI1f2IZiDDZQ9M4u1L5Hx+stJ6chxASXzBUHPJdNamO5DbmKU6H Wxic2+XEtBl/EvX4yB/yBJOwT7R+gjgWcQjCZ06aPmi0N45fGohhsutv7fE93qlm GCxp6zQisr88rgdgs6HyJgwc36ZmVFCqEoT8IYBYDxwWYc28S4Wb0WWd3R3rs13E 3eNysvRPPv0UxALYgecLKc/C0HOTQjfgS4YplbFL/ltHzIRLs6qPXUJyNT3XC+4= =YBMa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: experience with equinix exchange
On Nov 29, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 04:09:55PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote: According to pch they don't run most of them. I would say they run very few compared to how many there actually are. Uhh... Reality check, with the SD acquisition Equinix controls the VAST majority of the IX traffic in the US. The only other IX's doing anything even approaching interesting traffic are NOTA (in Miami), NYIIX (in New York), SIX (in Seattle), and the former AtlantaIX (now Telx TIE) in Atlanta. All are regional players, with very incomplete coverage of the important regions in the US, so if you're peering in the US you're almost guaranteed to be dealing with Equinix. I might not state things quite as strongly as RAS, but yes, in essence, that's how things stand. There's a very long tail to the IXP curve, but nearly all of the traffic volume in North America is going through Equinix-operated facilities, at this point. RAS has mentioned the main other ones, and I'd probably only add Toronto and CoreSite to the list. The only thing I would change is that Any2 has at least one exchange with traffic (Los Angeles) and is distributed throughout the country. But the vast majority of traffic exchange over IXes in the US is over Equinix/PAIX switches. And a very large amount of traffic over private interconnects is also done in their buildings. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Jumbo frame Question
On 11/29/2010 1:10 PM, John Kristoff wrote: In a nutshell, as I recall, one of the prime motivating factors for not standardizing jumbos was interoperability issues with the installed base, which penalizes other parts of the network (e.g. routers having to perform fragmentation) for the benefit of a select few (e.g. modern server to server comms). Given that IPv6 doesn't support routers performing fragmentation, and many packets are sent df-bit anyways, standardized jumbos would be nice. Just because the Internet as a whole may not support them, and ethernet cards themselves may not exceed 1500 by default, doesn't mean that a standard should be written for those instances where jumbo frames would be desired. Let's be honestly, there are huge implementations of baby giants out there. Verizon for one requires 1600 byte support for cell towers (tested at 1600 bytes for them, so slightly larger for transport gear depending on what is wrappers are placed over that). None of this indicates larger than 1500 byte IP, but it does indicate larger L2 MTU. There are many in-house setups which use jumbo frames, and having a standard for interoperability of those devices would be welcome. I'd personally love to see standards across the board for MTU from logical to physical supporting even tiered MTU with future proof overheads for vlans, mpls, ppp, intermixed in a large number of ways and layers (IP MTU support for X sizes, overhead support for Y sizes). Jack
Re: experience with equinix exchange
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:03:21PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The only thing I would change is that Any2 has at least one exchange with traffic (Los Angeles) and is distributed throughout the country. But the vast majority of traffic exchange over IXes in the US is over Equinix/PAIX switches. And a very large amount of traffic over private interconnects is also done in their buildings. Woops, yes I forgot Any2 (how'd that happen? :P). Like Telx they've recently deployed a bunch of new exchanges all over, but there is really only the one that does any traffic. :) For comparison purposes: http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm http://www.nyiix.net/index.php?core=statistics.php http://tie.telx.com/usage.pl http://www.coresite.com/peering-any2charts.php I don't think the combined Equinix / SD numbers are published publicly anywhere, but I'm sure it's north of a terabit. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government regulations I fear no one will like the result. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we've seen
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
I'd have to agree with Brian. There is no simple answer to this one... If the ultimate cause is the abuse of bandwidth, I can understand this... BUT if the underlying motive is to squash competition then shame on you! -Original Message- From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government regulations I fear no one will like the result. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I think it sets a very bad precedent that Level3 agreed to their terms. How long would it have lasted with Comcast subscribers asking why they couldn't download their movies? Aaron From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government regulations I fear no one will like the result. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-co ncerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3287 - Release Date: 11/29/10
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
Wonder if comcast will try that with google's tv service; would like to see them explain to their users why they can't get to google. Level 3's unfortunately a much easier target. -Original Message- From: Mark Wall [mailto:ospfisi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:47 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we've seen
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Mark Wall ospfisi...@gmail.com wrote: Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we've seen Is L3 really pushing more streaming traffic than LLNW? Is ending settlement-free peering with Google (Youtube) coming down the pipeline? -- Brandon Galbraith US Voice: 630.492.0464
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content. If the issue is bandwidth, then why not charge for bandwidth? Picking a specific service says we are trying to squash the competition. On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:48:06 -0600, Guerra, Ruben ruben.gue...@arrisi.com wrote: I'd have to agree with Brian. There is no simple answer to this one... If the ultimate cause is the abuse of bandwidth, I can understand this... BUT if the underlying motive is to squash competition then shame on you! -Original Message- From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government regulations I fear no one will like the result. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 5:46 PM, Mark Wall wrote: Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we've seen I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: http://market-ticker.org/post=173522
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 14:40, Rettke, Brian wrote: Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. Is Level3 the content provider though? Or did Comcast just decide they don't want to do the settlement free peering thing anymore for traffic transiting via Level 3? ~Seth
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 14:49, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. But then Comcast might have to raise prices on their customers. This way they don't. ~Seth
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:49:48PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. s/Comcast/Level3/ I think it sets a very bad precedent that Level3 agreed to their terms. How long would it have lasted with Comcast subscribers asking why they couldn't download their movies? Considering L3 was recently skating the border of the pink sheets, it should be no wonder that it is a very different response than the one given to Cogent, for example. Then again, who blinked first there? It is amusing that the once-disruptive L3 is seeking to defend its position in the so-called tier 1 carte^Wcabal by running to the regulators. I wonder how its fellow members of the club will like the idea of feds poking into their business when both sides of the equation are examined... -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:57 PM, William Warren hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote: On 11/29/2010 5:46 PM, Mark Wall wrote: Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering agreements (due to: ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to net neutrality making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to complain... Not the worse angle we've seen I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: http://market-ticker.org/post=173522 I'd have to disagree with his viewpoint. If customer is using resource X and you're not able to remain profitable, than you're not charging customer enough for the resource in question. This is just a backdoor attempt to raise the cost to the customer without them seeing it. If Comcast were to raise the price to the customer directly, I think you'd see defection to other services (if available in the area, like DSL or Clearwire). Doesn't Verizon FIOS provide 50-150Mb/s to the home now for the same cost as Comcast? Exhorting a carrier of content to your customer can't be a good business decision. -- Brandon Galbraith US Voice: 630.492.0464
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Unless I am missing something, Level3 is just the transit provider. Level 3 (via one of their acquisition a few years back) does have a very popular CDN product, but even if they are the source from an IP perspective, they still do not own the content, that is still primarily the networks and studios. Also as to GoogleTV, from what I have seen so far they are simply providing an interface (via an OS for 3rd party hardware) to access already available content, so yes they would be affected. -Scott -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 6:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 14:40, Rettke, Brian wrote: Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. Is Level3 the content provider though? Or did Comcast just decide they don't want to do the settlement free peering thing anymore for traffic transiting via Level 3? ~Seth
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I'd change this to A customer pays for SHARED access to the Internet. Unless your customer is paying for a direct fiber or internet circuit (~$500 - $10,000 per month) they aren't paying for independent and sole access to the internet. It's another term that I think has lost its actual meaning, Unlimited access. I don't have a problem, as a customer or as a Service Provider, passing along the bill to the top 5% that are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. I can see the Internet reaching a fair-use model, as opposed to a free-use model that is unsustainable, as was previously said. Here's one specific example I can think of to discuss: Netflix uses about a third of Internet bandwidth, in some cases going over the HTTP traffic use for most customers. Netflix charges customers a fee to use their service, but they don't pay the providers required to supply the bandwidth for the customer leg. I don't think ISPs charging Netflix is a sustainable model either. A mutual endeavor involving shared interconnect costs and intelligent placement of proxies would be something I could think of to make the process beneficial for all parties. The end goal would be that the Shared Media Customer has no idea what we are doing, but does not see performance degradation in their HTTP or Netflix traffic, and that it does not pass along additional cost to them. After all, to both Netflix and the ISP, it is in their best interests to keep that customer a happy and paying customer. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:11 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: Rettke, Brian; 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. As an ISP, I could care less what is in the packets my customers send and receive. The exception to this, of course, is malicious packets but they keep refusing to set the evil bit. Jack
Re: Jumbo frame Question
On 11/29/10 1:18 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 11/29/2010 1:10 PM, John Kristoff wrote: In a nutshell, as I recall, one of the prime motivating factors for not standardizing jumbos was interoperability issues with the installed base, which penalizes other parts of the network (e.g. routers having to perform fragmentation) for the benefit of a select few (e.g. modern server to server comms). Given that IPv6 doesn't support routers performing fragmentation, and many packets are sent df-bit anyways, standardized jumbos would be nice. Just because the Internet as a whole may not support them, and ethernet cards themselves may not exceed 1500 by default, doesn't mean that a standard should be written for those instances where jumbo frames would be desired. Let's be honestly, there are huge implementations of baby giants out there. Verizon for one requires 1600 byte support for cell towers (tested at 1600 bytes for them, so slightly larger for transport gear depending on what is wrappers are placed over that). None of this indicates larger than 1500 byte IP, but it does indicate larger L2 MTU. There are many in-house setups which use jumbo frames, and having a standard for interoperability of those devices would be welcome. I'd personally love to see standards across the board for MTU from logical to physical supporting even tiered MTU with future proof overheads for vlans, mpls, ppp, intermixed in a large number of ways and layers (IP MTU support for X sizes, overhead support for Y sizes). The level of undetected errors by TCP or UDP checksums can be high. The summation scheme is remarkably vulnerable to bus related bit errors, where as much as 2% of parallel bus related bit errors might go undetected. Use of SCTP, TLS, or IPSEC can supplant weak TCP/UDP summation error detection schemes. While Jumbo frames reduce serial error detection rates of the IEEE CRC restored by SCTP/CRC32c for Jumbo frames, serial detection is less of a concern when compared to bus related bit error detection rates. CRC32c solves both the bus and Jumbo frame error detection and is found in 10GB/s NICs and math coprocessors. -Doug
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 complied. Phil On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement- concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: experience with equinix exchange
Am 29.11.2010 20:44, schrieb Richard A Steenbergen: Uhh... Reality check, with the SD acquisition Equinix controls the VAST majority of the IX traffic in the US. [...] I was actually quite surprised that, when the merger of Equinix and SD was announced, no competition commission woke up and regulated it. An order could have been for example the independence of the former PAIX exchanges. I don't think in Europe a merger of AMSIX, LINX and DECIX would be accepted by the EU competition commission. Though these three exchanges are not for profit, which is, of course, another background. Fredy Künzler Init7 / AS13030
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. As an ISP, I could care less what is in the packets my customers send and receive. The exception to this, of course, is malicious packets but they keep refusing to set the evil bit. Jack
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 15:24, Phil Bedard wrote: Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 complied. My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopsided in one direction, then it becomes more like paying for transit. Perhaps this is the cost of acquisitions and mergers, like acquiring a CDN product that dramatically screws with your peering ratios. ~Seth
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
From: Rettke, Brian Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 2:41 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. From a cultural standpoint, we in the US are used to a model where the sender pays the postage for unsolicited content and the requestor pays the shipping for requested content. So asking an ad network to pay Comcast for shipping their ads is valid but in a request where the end user specifically asked for a movie, the user should be expected to pay for that. What Comcast appears to be doing is subsidizing flat rate customer rates by charging the providers metered access (assuming the fee charged the provider isn't also a flat rate). If so, that really isn't fair because: 1. The provider has no control over the size of or number of requests that are made. The provider is essentially agreeing to an unknown quantity in advance. 2. There is no way to ensure that a request is legitimate and not a request generated simply to generate revenue (sort of like click fraud ... stream fraud). 3. It opens the provider up to a denial of sustainability attack where a bot net requests many copies of various streams, sends them to the equivalent of /dev/null and the provider is presented with a huge bill. 4. The only way a provider could mitigate increases in fees is to meter access causing a sub-optimal user experience. Shouldn't Level3 turn around and charge Comcast for distributing NBC/Universal content? The whole thing is like a movie theater charging the studios to show movies while selling tickets to the public to watch them. Actualy, it is like Universal opening their own movie theaters and charging competing studios to show their movies while still charging the public to see them. Comcast is simply imposing a tariff on competing content. If I were level3, I would have denied the request. Customers on Comcast would then discover they have sub-optimal Internet service and gone to a competitor (ATT Uverse or Verizon FIOS, for example). As owner of NBC Universal, Comcast is a producer as well as a distributor of content. That puts them in direct competition with other producers regardless of the distributor. Level3 should deny the request and Comcast users will have Internet access instead of Internet access. Comcast doesn't have the captive audience they once had in many places and when customers discover their choices are limited when they choose Comcast, they will go elsewhere. I hope Level3's acquiescence is temporary or the FTC puts a stop to it. It is sort of like FedEx owning the freeway and charging UPS to use it.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Netflix pays someone to get access to the internet and that someone has some sort of relationship with Comcast, or gets to Comcast through a third party who has that relationship. No one is getting anything for free. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect customers to bear the cost of their provider doing business. If that business calls for the buildout of additional infrastructure to remain competitive then so be it. Comcast customers pay their provider, Netflix pays its provider. I think what this really boils down to is an effect of shoddy marketing. Access providers want to offer unlimited everything and don't want to have to go back to their customer base and say, oh, sorry, we didn't really mean unlimited. We didn't think you'd really use that much. So they are looking for ways of making up for the increased costs without having to look like idiots to their customers. My problem is, what happens if this becomes the new model? What if Comcast comes to me and says, Oh, we've noticed X Mbits originating from your network coming through ours. Here's the bill of $X per bit. What happens when I counter with, Ok, and I see X bits originating from your network. Here's my bill, too. Do they agree to an exchange of money for an exchange of bits or do I get an F you. Pay your bill to us and we're not giving you crap. Aaron From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:21 PM To: Jack Bates; Aaron Wendel Cc: 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I'd change this to A customer pays for SHARED access to the Internet. Unless your customer is paying for a direct fiber or internet circuit (~$500 - $10,000 per month) they aren't paying for independent and sole access to the internet. It's another term that I think has lost its actual meaning, Unlimited access. I don't have a problem, as a customer or as a Service Provider, passing along the bill to the top 5% that are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. I can see the Internet reaching a fair-use model, as opposed to a free-use model that is unsustainable, as was previously said. Here's one specific example I can think of to discuss: Netflix uses about a third of Internet bandwidth, in some cases going over the HTTP traffic use for most customers. Netflix charges customers a fee to use their service, but they don't pay the providers required to supply the bandwidth for the customer leg. I don't think ISPs charging Netflix is a sustainable model either. A mutual endeavor involving shared interconnect costs and intelligent placement of proxies would be something I could think of to make the process beneficial for all parties. The end goal would be that the Shared Media Customer has no idea what we are doing, but does not see performance degradation in their HTTP or Netflix traffic, and that it does not pass along additional cost to them. After all, to both Netflix and the ISP, it is in their best interests to keep that customer a happy and paying customer. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:11 PM To: Aaron Wendel Cc: Rettke, Brian; 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; 'NANOG list' Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 4:49 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. As an ISP, I could care less what is in the packets my customers send and receive. The exception to this, of course, is malicious packets but they keep refusing to set the evil bit. Jack _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3287 - Release Date: 11/29/10
Re: experience with equinix exchange
On Nov 29, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Even combined, no. It's north of 700 Gbps though. I am assuming they have combined SD into the graph, though: https://ix.equinix.com/peeringstats/userHome.do?action=home Given that Any2 is in the 200 range, Equinix is clearly more - more than all four combined. But all the traffic on every Equinix and PAIX switch combined, is still lower than the traffic on any one of the three large exchanges in Europe. It really is all about the PNIs. I wonder how is NOTA like, do they ever make the traffic info public? Mehmet
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
I hope Level3's acquiescence is temporary or the FTC puts a stop to it. It is sort of like FedEx owning the freeway and charging UPS to use it. Note that I would have no problem with Comcast's demand for payment if they didn't also own NBC/Universal. If they were to divest themselves of NBC/Universal and charge NBC/Universal the same distribution fee, then I say fine. The problem here is the fact that Comcast isn't charging more to pay for the cost of viewing streaming content, they are charging more for viewing COMPETING streaming content.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
As a Comcast customer, I find it very interesting that they think they have the right to reject bits from other providers I may request them from. The first time I encounter Comcast actually blocking bits I want as a result of this policy, it will result in a technical support call. If the bits don't start flowing within a reasonable time after that call, you can bet that I will be pursuing regulatory and judicial relief. Ordinarily, I would simply vote with my feet and switch to another broadband provider, but, if you want more than 1.5Mbps/384kbps in my neighborhood, Comcast is currently the only game in town. I encourage other Comcast customers to make it clear to Comcast that this attempt to extort money from other providers at the potential cost of degraded service to Comcast's own customers is deplorable and certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of the service agreements for their high speed internet service products. Owen On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Guerra, Ruben wrote: It seems that Comcast(AS7922) peers directly with Netflix(AS2906)? -Original Message- From: Phil Bedard [mailto:bedard.p...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:24 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 complied. Phil On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement- concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:34:52PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote: My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopsided in one direction, then it becomes more like paying for transit. When you have users and no content how can the traffic be equal? When you have content and no users how can the traffic be equal? Ratio is horribly outdated. Cable and DSL providers enforce out of ratio at the edge with technology and policy. My cable modem is 8 down 2 up, yet my traffic profile is supposed to be equal? I can't host any servers by my TOS, but aggregated up the ratio is supposed to be 1:1? No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant network. Ever. Period. It's not possible via technology and TOS. Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete with you. That's bad business. But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Peering spats like this are ego problems. It's one VP/SVP/CTO/CFO deciding that my sandbox is more important than your sandbox, or I'm going to get revenue even if the world hates me for it and I'm going to burn all my bridges in the process. If they actually wanted to equalize the costs, they could do that. Decide on better peering locations, use cold potato routing, locate caching/cdn things inside the other network, etc. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpkS4JPwFRWX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:42 PM, George Bonser wrote: From: Rettke, Brian Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 2:41 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. From a cultural standpoint, we in the US are used to a model where the sender pays the postage for unsolicited content and the requestor pays the shipping for requested content. So asking an ad network to pay Comcast for shipping their ads is valid but in a request where the end user specifically asked for a movie, the user should be expected to pay for that. What Comcast appears to be doing is subsidizing flat rate customer rates by charging the providers metered access (assuming the fee charged the provider isn't also a flat rate). If so, that really isn't fair because: On the internet, how would you tell these apart? First, as I have said in a previous message, I think Comcast's actions here are deplorable. However... Generally speaking, most (legitimate) ads are delivered as content on web pages at various sites. As a result, they are requested specifically by the user's browser right alongside all the other content the end user actually asked for. Perhaps part of the problem here is that Comcast comes from a culture where advertisers pay to deliver their advertising which is delivered directly alongside the content that the consumer actually wants. Perhaps Comcast is having a hard time realizing that the internet is not broadcast television, or, perhaps they think they can convert the rest of us to thinking of the internet along those lines. Certainly the ad-delivery method on the web is actually more in line with that of broadcast television than it is in line with postal delivery of advertising. 1. The provider has no control over the size of or number of requests that are made. The provider is essentially agreeing to an unknown quantity in advance. 2. There is no way to ensure that a request is legitimate and not a request generated simply to generate revenue (sort of like click fraud ... stream fraud). 3. It opens the provider up to a denial of sustainability attack where a bot net requests many copies of various streams, sends them to the equivalent of /dev/null and the provider is presented with a huge bill. 4. The only way a provider could mitigate increases in fees is to meter access causing a sub-optimal user experience. All valid points. In fact, this points out that while the approach Comcast is taking appears to resemble the sponsor pays model of broadcast television, the metered aspect is a major difference which changes the game significantly. I suspect that Comcast is operating from the assumption that every request for content to the provider is money flowing to the provider so that the money collected by Comcast for the corresponding traffic is merely their cut of the revenue. Of course we all know this is a flawed assumption on Comcast's part, but, if you look at it from that mind set the belief can be rationalized, even if it is misguided. Shouldn't Level3 turn around and charge Comcast for distributing NBC/Universal content? Seems like a reasonable response, but, hopefully Level 3 will not surrender the high ground since they have it for the moment. The whole thing is like a movie theater charging the studios to show movies while selling tickets to the public to watch them. Actualy, it is like Universal opening their own movie theaters and charging competing studios to show their movies while still charging the public to see them. Comcast is simply imposing a tariff on competing content. If I were level3, I would have denied the request. Customers on Comcast would then discover they have sub-optimal Internet service and gone to a competitor (ATT Uverse or Verizon FIOS, for example). That's great in areas where that is an option. There are many areas served by Comcast where Uverse, FIOS, etc. are not available. I live in San Jose, California, the so called Capitol of Silicon Valley. In my neighborhood, Comcast is the only cost effective alternative for more than 1.5mbps/384kbps. (A residential DS-3 circuit is not cost effective). As owner of NBC Universal, Comcast is a producer as well as a distributor of content. That puts them in direct competition with other producers regardless of the distributor. Level3 should deny the request and Comcast users will have Internet access instead of Internet access. Comcast doesn't have the captive audience they once had in many places and when customers discover their choices are limited when they choose Comcast, they will go elsewhere. I hope Level3's acquiescence is temporary or the FTC puts a stop to it. It is sort of like FedEx owning the freeway and charging UPS to use
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 5:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant network. Ever. Period. It's not possible via technology and TOS. Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete with you. That's bad business. The NSPs generally don't do non-transit peering unless traffic loads are high enough to justify it. That said, CDNs are the same. Google doesn't want to peer privately with someone who doesn't do enough traffic to justify the cost of the port, haul, support, etc. The ratio of which way bits are flying are really irrelevant when peering, and as you say, tends to be more ego than anything. The key, and what everyone wants is Someone paying me talks to someone I don't have to pay. Doesn't matter if it's CDN talking transit to an eyeball network or eyeballs paying for transit to access a privately peered CDN. What you don't want is 2 entities talking to one another through you without you making a dime. Jack
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Now we know what Xfinity means :-) Jeff
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote: Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I find it helpful to distinguish participant neutrality from service neutrality. The first says that you and I pay the same rate. The second says the my email costs the same as my voip. As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for participant non-neutrality. On the other hand, if Comcast were charging itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality (assuming there is a plausible meaning to charging itself... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote: Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I find it helpful to distinguish participant neutrality from service neutrality. The first says that you and I pay the same rate. The second says the my email costs the same as my voip. As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for participant non-neutrality. On the other hand, if Comcast were charging itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality (assuming there is a plausible meaning to charging itself... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:34:52 PST, Seth Mattinen said: My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic exchanged. Equal *value* of traffic exchanged. A network that has a lot of eyeballs may be willing to accept some imbalance to connect to a popular source of content, and that content source is equally motivated to cut some slack on the ratio to get good access to more eyeballs. pgpN8fOa4M3Dm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:11:18 CST, Jack Bates said: I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. Oddly enough, cable channels like ESPN asking for a per-subscriber fee from cable delivery networks like Comcast has been a mostly-scalable model for the cable-TV arena for three or four decades now pgpsungHgYxus.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 07:55 PM, Ren Provo wrote: http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote: Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns around and charges us (providers) more to cover the additional money they have to pay Comcast now. In the meantime Comcast continues to undercut the market it sells into making it harder for me as a service provider to compete...that just isn't right. Maybe Comcast should raise their prices to their customers to cover the cost of upgrading there network, but then they wouldn't be able to undercut me anymore...monopolies are a dangerous thing!
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 20:02 -0500, Bret Clark wrote: On 11/29/2010 07:55 PM, Ren Provo wrote: http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote: Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 gave into Comcast and paid them already according to a press release they issued. William.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
In summary: Level3 is crying foul while their CDN competitors have quietly bought into Comcast's racket. I applaud Level3 for calling attention to this matter. Owen (Speaking strictly for myself) On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Ren Provo wrote: http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote: Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I find it helpful to distinguish participant neutrality from service neutrality. The first says that you and I pay the same rate. The second says the my email costs the same as my voip. As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for participant non-neutrality. On the other hand, if Comcast were charging itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality (assuming there is a plausible meaning to charging itself... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/2010 6:45 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I think what this really boils down to is an effect of shoddy marketing. Access providers want to offer unlimited everything and don't want to have to go back to their customer base and say, oh, sorry, we didn't really mean unlimited. We didn't think you'd really use that much. So they are looking for ways of making up for the increased costs without having to look like idiots to their customers. Unlimited access is already NOT unlimited access. A transfer cap isn't unlimited..while Comcast has a generous cap..it's still a transfer cap. My problem is, what happens if this becomes the new model? What if Comcast comes to me and says, Oh, we've noticed X Mbits originating from your network coming through ours. Here's the bill of $X per bit. What happens when I counter with, Ok, and I see X bits originating from your network. Here's my bill, too. Do they agree to an exchange of money for an exchange of bits or do I get an F you. Pay your bill to us and we're not giving you crap.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue. ~Seth
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? You bet. http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/11/11/level-3-signs-deal-to-be-a-primary-netflix-cdn-shares-rally/ • NOVEMBER 11, 2010, 9:13 AM ET Level 3 Signs Deal To Be A Primary Netflix CDN; Shares Rally Regards Marshall Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 complied. Phil On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement- concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Trying to follow this - so, if I have followed it correctly, L3 hosts high-bandwitdh services (namely NetFlix) to which an abundance of Comcast users subscribe? And Comcast is crying foul, and claiming a portion of L3's revenue is rightfully theirs, for being last mile to a significant portion of the CDN/NetFlix customer base? Does L3 even service a home user market, in the same vein as Comcast or Verizon? On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tvwrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? You bet. http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/11/11/level-3-signs-deal-to-be-a-primary-netflix-cdn-shares-rally/ • NOVEMBER 11, 2010, 9:13 AM ET Level 3 Signs Deal To Be A Primary Netflix CDN; Shares Rally Regards Marshall Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 complied. Phil On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement- concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick -- To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
Hi, This is nothing to do with technology, it never is, it is about cap-ex, money, sales, market share, dominance, internal products, hurting the competition. While I have delusions about technical people putting agenda aside to work in a co-ordinate fashion on IPv6 I have no such delusions the second a commercial interest enters the fray. Cogent made Level3 bend over years ago, it will be interesting to see if Comcast can do the same or if Level3 will grow a pair and refuse to be bullied despite the commercial loss. Ben -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: 30 November 2010 01:47 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue. ~Seth -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, monitoring of quality and customer services.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
And what happens when the content providers have multicast to the BGP edge and the access provider has to carry it from there on in their network. This is solely about money and the brokenness of the current ISP / access / carrier / content provider commercial model. This has been coming for years once access speed (long since) got upto a sufficient speed to sustain 1 to 2 Mbit and they sorted out their copyright issues on the content. Now all the access providers who spoke big in marketing and delivered little in service are being exposed and trying to fudge the issue. This has been coming for at least five years with video, and the next one is SIP with call revenues. Show me the money! -Original Message- From: Steven Fischer [mailto:sfischer1...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 November 2010 02:03 To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Trying to follow this - so, if I have followed it correctly, L3 hosts high-bandwitdh services (namely NetFlix) to which an abundance of Comcast users subscribe? And Comcast is crying foul, and claiming a portion of L3's revenue is rightfully theirs, for being last mile to a significant portion of the CDN/NetFlix customer base? Does L3 even service a home user market, in the same vein as Comcast or Verizon? On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tvwrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? You bet. http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/11/11/level-3-signs-deal-to-be-a-primary-netflix-cdn-shares-rally/ * NOVEMBER 11, 2010, 9:13 AM ET Level 3 Signs Deal To Be A Primary Netflix CDN; Shares Rally Regards Marshall Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing it along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 complied. Phil On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement- concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick -- To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Patrick, The way I explain it to folks is this: It's a question of double-dipping. If company A has a customer B who pays A for a particular service, company C should not be able to pay company A to meaningfully change the character of B's service. Such a pay-to-play interference in A's contract with B is unfair to customer B at a very fundamental level. Now, you guys have to get paid. There is no acceptable end result where C comes along, busts your oversubscription model and blows you a raspberry. But you can't do it by double-billing the service. That's usually unethical and in many forms of commerce it's illegal too. IMO, Comcast is cruising for a bruising here. So try something else. Maybe you'll openly peer with all comers but only at 100 mbps in any single location. You'll open as many locations deep in the network as they want, but it's the peer's problem to connect there. Naturally you'll sell a convenience service to backhaul all those connection points to a convenient location for the peers... or they can make their own arrangements but either way they don't get to massively consume your backbone for free. There's probably enough separation there between what you sell customer B and what you sell customer C to eke over to the good side of the ethics line. And by the way an open peering policy with those parameters would make you the Chamber of Commerce's new best friend, enabling small business to vend innovative products directly to your customers (and then pay you for the convenience of aggregation once they build up a customer base). Or maybe you'll just enforce the oversubscription ratio. X bandwidth for the light users. The same X bandwidth for the heavy users. If you're in the top 2% you're grouped with the heavy users. But oh by the way you can buy the Video package for $10 more and we'll put you in group Y instead where you have a clear shot at Netflix that consumes a different channel. If the remainder of your usage is outside the top 2% you can go back to the light users group. Netflix can't pay us for that; it would interfere with our contract with you. But you can pay us. I don't know the final answer here, but it isn't some kind of ethically-challenged double-dipping the till. Regards, Bill Herrin P.S. I'll see your off-topic politics and raise you an ethics lecture. -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
Hi, Agreed if they are cost recovering in full for end to end delivery of the packet. But I suspect that market forces haven driven things to a point where there business models depend on peering ratios and SFI. It is not double billing, it is shared billing. The simple fact is that consumers do not pay enough and are unwilling to pay enough for their access circuit. This cost disparity between access, packet delivery and content / advertising / subscription revenues is highlighted in high bandwidth services that break the cost averaging utilization model. I know the content providers hate this, I know the consumers will not pay more for their access, but the money pie is a certain size and the costs need to be born by all parties for end to end service delivery. Sorry content providers, you need to suck it up and come up with a more compelling commercial offer, or, if you already have one you need to start spreading the love. Sorry but this is a shared problem that needs to be collectively and collaboratively addressed rather than the normal ill informed commercial winning that I hear repeatedly about how it all not fair. -Original Message- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: 30 November 2010 02:19 To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Patrick, The way I explain it to folks is this: It's a question of double-dipping. If company A has a customer B who pays A for a particular service, company C should not be able to pay company A to meaningfully change the character of B's service. Such a pay-to-play interference in A's contract with B is unfair to customer B at a very fundamental level. Now, you guys have to get paid. There is no acceptable end result where C comes along, busts your oversubscription model and blows you a raspberry. But you can't do it by double-billing the service. That's usually unethical and in many forms of commerce it's illegal too. IMO, Comcast is cruising for a bruising here. So try something else. Maybe you'll openly peer with all comers but only at 100 mbps in any single location. You'll open as many locations deep in the network as they want, but it's the peer's problem to connect there. Naturally you'll sell a convenience service to backhaul all those connection points to a convenient location for the peers... or they can make their own arrangements but either way they don't get to massively consume your backbone for free. There's probably enough separation there between what you sell customer B and what you sell customer C to eke over to the good side of the ethics line. And by the way an open peering policy with those parameters would make you the Chamber of Commerce's new best friend, enabling small business to vend innovative products directly to your customers (and then pay you for the convenience of aggregation once they build up a customer base). Or maybe you'll just enforce the oversubscription ratio. X bandwidth for the light users. The same X bandwidth for the heavy users. If you're in the top 2% you're grouped with the heavy users. But oh by the way you can buy the Video package for $10 more and we'll put you in group Y instead where you have a clear shot at Netflix that consumes a different channel. If the remainder of your usage is outside the top 2% you can go back to the light users group. Netflix can't pay us for that; it would interfere with our contract with you. But you can pay us. I don't know the final answer here, but it isn't some kind of ethically-challenged double-dipping the till. Regards, Bill Herrin P.S. I'll see your off-topic politics and raise you an ethics lecture. -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891;
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html says: Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3. So, Comcast users like other provider's content 5 times more than the rest of the world cares for Comcast's content...? Jeff
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: No one will ever be in ratio compliance with an eyeball dominant network. Ever. Period. It's not possible via technology and TOS. Enforcing it as an eyeball network just forces content providers to aquire eyeballs, e.g. compete with you. That's bad business. see craig's report from nanog47: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_ObserveReport_N47_Mon.pdf not for a time has Comcast been solely an 'eye-ball' network... or so they think. -chris (I don't disagree with leo's stance, though I'm not a peering person so I really try never to know how all of that magic works)
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Ben Butler ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote: It is not double billing, it is shared billing. Hi Ben, Nice try, but no. There are a couple forms of shared billing. The one you're probably talking about is The Dance. Everybody pays to get in to the dance. The organizer provides a ballroom and a DJ. And then you dance with whoever else pays. One key criteria for The Dance is that all participants are on an equal footing. If the DJ never gets around to playing my song because someone else gave him a list and a fifty then I've been ripped off. Netflix and John Residential Doe are not on equal footing. Netflix will always be the controlling voice in that partnership. Hence Dance-style shared billing is inappropriate -- from John's perspective he should have to pay Netflix or you but not both. Another form of shared billing is when two parties pool resources to deal with a third. For example, you and your insurance company at the pharmacy. Or my neighbor and I buying a jointly-owned snow-blower. I don't think that's the kind of shared billing you meant. Roommates appears to be shared billing but it isn't. In one version, a particular roommate is responsible for the entire rent whether the others cough up their share or not. That's called subletting. In another, all roommates are responsible for the entire rent regardless of whether the others do what they're supposed to. Never sign the latter rent contract. Just don't. When it goes bad you get royally screwed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
I know the content providers hate this, I know the consumers will not pay more for their access Yes they will. They are going to have to. To expect end user traffic to increase by an order of magnitude without any corresponding upgrade of the infrastructure to support that is living in a fantasy world. Comcast believes they are big enough to force the content providers to pay. If the content providers say no, then Comcast will be forced to increase subscription fees in order to finance that upgrade. That will, in turn, allow their competitors to also increase subscription rates and upgrade their infrastructures to support today's traffic demands. If Comcast can force the providers to pay, they are betting that their competitors won't and Comcast will be able to undercut the subscription rates of their competition or force them into sub-standard service from the traffic loads. It is basically an economic game of chicken. If the providers simply say no and disconnect, Comcast loses. There is a compromise solution but the politicians have neutered that idea. The idea would be to simply continue to carry the traffic but prioritize it down if you don't pay. Basically two levels of service ... standard and sub-standard (no premium). If a content provider pays, their traffic stays as it is. If a content provider doesn't pay, their stuff gets QoS second tier. This is a little different than the model of selling premium level access to a network. Heck, if I were Level3, I might even drop the level of traffic in my own network bound for Comcast and have a note on the site that Comcast users can expect poor performance. Something like Comcast is too poor to upgrade their network and has attempted to extort payment from us under threat of disconnection from their internet users. Though we have refused to pay the eyeball ransom, we have decided to help Comcast out anyway by bandwidth limiting traffic to their poor wittle network. As a result, Comcast users might experience reduced performance.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
OK...as I was driving up and back on I-95 through Connecticut up toward Boston, I noticed that at all the rest/gas-up stops, there was a single restaurant - McDonalds. No Burger Kings, Wendy, etc...just McDonalds. Now I'm relatively certain that McD's had to pony up significant coin to be the restaurant of choice for the I-95 corridor through Connecticut. That commercial agreement was made with the owners of the infrastructure (in the case, the state of Connecticut) prior to McDonald establishing a presence on the highway. It would be bad form, IMO, for the state to come back to Mc'D's and say hey...you guys are doing a thriving business here...we want a bigger cut, and if we don't get it, we'll barracade the exits and you'll do NO business in these shops you've stood up. Furthermore, we don't care if our customers (drivers on the highway) have bought the McD's meal plan for their frequent trips up and down the road...they can't do business here. Comcast has essentially quarantined off part of the 'net. The point was made earlier - does Comcast take the same stand against Google? Are they going to tax Amazon (Holiday traffic, you know) for their traffic, or any other online merchant that may not use Comcast as a primary provider? Comcast's infrastructure is getting overrun by legitimate traffic requested by their own customers - I'm not a NetFlix subscriber, but the way I understand it is that the customer requests content in the form of movies over the net - content is not arbitrarily provided by the content provider. Instead of rasing the tarriffs for the true consumers in this case - being their customers, they're going after the content provider. Anti-competitive at best. The truth is, given today's media-rich content, Comcast can't deliver a 15mb constant stream of traffic (or whatever it is they claim to offer), at $19.95/month - they've made a business decision to over-subscribe their infrastructure, and had a formula for the level to which they were going to over-subscribe their network. That formula either wasn't accurate then, or didn't take into account the media-rich content that would be delivered over the net. Now, the second explanation really doesn't hold water in light of the fact that Comcast also offers premium content similar to NetFlix. A significant portion of the Comcast subscriber base has decided the content available from NetFlix either in content or delivery, superior to that offered by Comcast. So Comcast is now saying ...wait...to get your content to our customers, your traffic has to traverse our backbone, therefore, we should be able to extract a tarriff for said traffic. But the NetFlix subscription is a fully opt-in model. L3, via NetFlix, is simply delivering the content Comcast customers have requested, and using the Internet to delivery it. Comcast has truly handled this all wrong...they should either a) charge their customers a more realistic monthly fee - one more in line with what it takes to deliver what their level-of-service claims they offer, or b) improve the quality and/or delivery of their premium content, or make it more cosst-effective to their customers, so their customers don't have to go off-net to get the premium content they desire. What they did is take the easy route, which is/was to try to get into the pockets of the successful content provider, because their network is ill-equipped to handle their own level-of-service claims. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tvwrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Steven Fischer wrote: Trying to follow this - so, if I have followed it correctly, L3 hosts high-bandwitdh services (namely NetFlix) to which an abundance of Comcast users subscribe? That is my understanding. And Comcast is crying foul, and claiming a portion of L3's revenue is rightfully theirs, for being last mile to a significant portion of the CDN/NetFlix customer base? That is my reading of these diplomatic notes. Does L3 even service a home user market, in the same vein as Comcast or Verizon? Not as far as I know, although they made enough acquisitions I wouldn't be surprised if they had the odd neighborhood. Regards Marshall On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? You bet. http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/11/11/level-3-signs-deal-to-be-a-primary-netflix-cdn-shares-rally/ • NOVEMBER 11, 2010, 9:13 AM ET Level 3 Signs Deal To Be A Primary Netflix CDN; Shares Rally Regards Marshall Netflix has become a large source of traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of things. Obviously someone has to pay for the
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
Heck, if I were Level3, I might even drop the level of traffic in my own network bound for Comcast and have a note on the site that Comcast users can expect poor performance. Something like Comcast is too poor to upgrade their network and has attempted to extort payment from us under threat of disconnection from their internet users. Though we have refused to pay the eyeball ransom, we have decided to help Comcast out anyway by bandwidth limiting traffic to their poor wittle network. As a result, Comcast users might experience reduced performance. Note that was tongue in cheek. I actually support the notion of making it more expensive to deploy more bandwidth intensive applications as it *does* place an unfair burden on the delivery network. The problem I have in this case is the conflict of interest when the delivery network is also a content provider and discriminates against content competitors.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
In the Uk, we used to have 2MB DSL, and business providers like myself would happily provide it on the basis of CBR 2Mbit and we did'nt care what you did with it. 2Mbit is more than enough for streaming and I challenge anyone otherwise. Then consumer broadband came along, the subs went down, the headline speeds went up, service delivery becomes impossible in the face of the marketing BS and here we are. If the subs pay £30 to £45 rather than £10 to £15 then this entire issue disappears. I don't give a frig what my hosted clients do or my access clients do, they can run at line rate, I want then to get every paid for bit in the best fashion it can be delivered. The problem is the access industry has allowed their sales and marketing people to put them in a point of no return. -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, monitoring of quality and customer services.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
It would be bad form, IMO, for the state to come back to Mc'D's and say hey...you guys are doing a thriving business here...we want a bigger cut, and if we don't get it, we'll barracade the exits and you'll do NO business in these shops you've stood up. Furthermore, we don't care if our customers (drivers on the highway) have bought the McD's meal plan for their frequent trips up and down the road...they can't do business here. But it is worse than that. It is as if the Connecticut transportation authority opened their own burger joints and *then* threatened to block the exits if McDonald's doesn't pay up. I am a great fan of markets and I am sure economics will route around the damage in this case, but it will take a while. I hope Comcast comes up with a better answer in the long run.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:22:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: see craig's report from nanog47: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_ObserveReport_N47_Mon.pdf not for a time has Comcast been solely an 'eye-ball' network... or so they think. I think you are misreading the data. From googling around it appears there are somewhere between 90 and 100 million broadband subscribers in the united states. Comcast claims to have somewhere between 15 and 17 million broadband subscribers, and they are the largest cable company in the US. With around 18-20% of all broadband end-users in the US Comcast, if you believe Arbor's numbers, generate 3.12% of all Internet traffic. Comcast also sells business service (not cable modem, but like GigE to the prem) which is propping that up a bit. If the FCC wanted to do something useful they would look at the combined ratio of all /customers/ of an ISP, and then require their peering policy to allow for around 2x of that. For instance, if you summed all Comcast customers and did the ratio of out:in and got 3:1, they should at a minimum be required to peer with someone at 6:1 IMHO. I have no idea in Comcast's case specifically, or in any recent case as my skin isn't in the game right now. However I am quite sure in the past I have delt with networks who wanted 2:1 on peering, but where I was nearly positive their customer base was 3:1 or 4:1. Basically the ratio became an excuse to depeer anyone they didn't like, it was all a sham. While I think ratio requirements are just plain stupid, I do think it needs to be considered when looking at peering. If you do hot potato routing the person on the wrong end of the ratio ends up carrying the traffic longer distances. If you look at long haul bandwidth on a bit-mile basis this can be unfair in some circumstances. The thing is though it's easy to fix. Networks could use MEDs (yes, they work on Internet scale routing), selective leaking (w/no-export), peering with regional ASN's (many of the large eyeball networks are subdivided internally) or any number of other very simple configurations to balance this issue. But I come back to my fundamental beef with cable and DSL providers, when you're selling 50/5 (10:1 ratio), 25/5 (5:1 ratio), 12/2 (6:1 ratio) services, you can't expect to maintain a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio with your peers. If you look at the TV side of the business the eyeball network is the whipping boy 99 times out of 100. Look at the recent Fox v Cable Vision dispute, Cable Vision caved. Users want content, users pay Cable Vision, Cable VIsion gets millions of angry calls, Fox runs a few ads how Cable Vision is the big bad guy and they have deals with everyone else. Go back to previous cases, almost always the eyeballs cave. Provides are trying to change this in IP space, because they don't like it. They want Netflix/Amazon/Apple/RIAA/MPAA to pay, and not be in charge. For the moment this works, if Netflix can't deliver via the Internet their users just request DVD's in the mail; a peering spat hurts Netflix more than Comcast. But, as users cut the cord, and get more of their content over the Internet I think we'll see the same shift. Outside of Nanog Ma and Pa Citizen don't even know what the word peering means. All they know is when they can't get their Netfix streaming to work they call their provider and complain, possibly going as far as to switch services. Now, while it may seem I'm taking Level 3's side of this dispute I am not. Sadly when these things spill out in public like this it is generally because both sides have been acting like idiots with each other in private for months or years. Maybe Level 3's been a model citizen in this case and has been wronged, but I doubt it. The problem is it all happened in private, and nice press releases from both parties aside we really have no idea what happened behind closed doors, who asked for what, who's egos got out of control, etc. I'm not going to call a winner or a loser, just point out how broken some of the arguments put forth are. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpCp0OnDDCJO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Ben Butler wrote: In the Uk, we used to have 2MB DSL, and business providers like myself would happily provide it on the basis of CBR 2Mbit and we did'nt care what you did with it. 2Mbit is more than enough for streaming and I challenge anyone otherwise. I say otherwise. So do many customers who want 720 or 1080 lines on their TV. So do many content providers who want to satisfy their customers. But it is your network, your rules. If your customers do not want HD quality, and are happy with 1.5 Mbps streams per DSL line, that's between you your customers. Of course, if your customers want more, that's between your customers and your competitors -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:03:27PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: [snip] If the FCC wanted to do something useful they would look at the combined ratio of all /customers/ of an ISP, and then require their peering policy to allow for around 2x of that. [snip] ...or maybe not get involved in peering policies at all? DO we really want regulatory oversight here, happily driving traffic away from the US? -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ben Butler ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote: Then consumer broadband came along, the subs went down, the headline speeds went up, service delivery becomes impossible in the face of the marketing BS and here we are. Hi Ben, So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service, I pay for kilowatt-hours of usage. There are several problems transplanting that billing model to Internet service. The first you've already noticed - marketing activity has rendered it unsalable. But that's not the only problem. Another problem is that the price of electricity has been very stable for a very long time, as has the general character of devices which consume it. Consumers have a gut understanding of the cost of leaving the light on. But what is a byte? How much to load that web page? Watch that movie? And doesn't Moore's Law mean that 18 months from now it should cost half as much? If I can't tell whether or not I'm being ripped off, I'm probably being ripped off. A third problem is the whole regulated monopoly thing. The electric company had to be slapped down hard by the government to make its billing process fair. Anything we can do to avoid that fate is money in the bank, even if it means allowing the occasional customer to get more than he paid for. So if we can't bill you by usage, and at a consumer level we can't, then we have to find another way. Statistics and prayer isn't working out as well as we'd hoped so we're looking at double-billing schemes. Bad plan! Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
Ok, you have a point with SD vs HD which is encoded at 8 rather than 2 on our digital terrestrial and satellite broadcasters in the UK. So why 24mb or 50mb access speeds, what is it actually being used for, I do not believe that streamed video is the culprit here with most codecs doing about ~700 kbits. Part of the problem is the content providers do not encode properly, we have seen this all along with images on webs sties as access speeds have increased. There is no penalty on the content provider for lazy programming, cpu cycles or codec licensing to stop them making the access network carry larger streams than nessacery. And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs true HD marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at 3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it the allowable compression for it still to be considered as such. -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: 30 November 2010 04:04 To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Ben Butler wrote: In the Uk, we used to have 2MB DSL, and business providers like myself would happily provide it on the basis of CBR 2Mbit and we did'nt care what you did with it. 2Mbit is more than enough for streaming and I challenge anyone otherwise. I say otherwise. So do many customers who want 720 or 1080 lines on their TV. So do many content providers who want to satisfy their customers. But it is your network, your rules. If your customers do not want HD quality, and are happy with 1.5 Mbps streams per DSL line, that's between you your customers. Of course, if your customers want more, that's between your customers and your competitors -- TTFN, patrick -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, monitoring of quality and customer services.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
Same hymn sheet, if they pay enough the cost averaging model works again and we don't have to worry about latency critical or transfer volume. The problem is that they wont pay for it. -Original Message- From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: 30 November 2010 04:17 To: Ben Butler Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ben Butler ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote: Then consumer broadband came along, the subs went down, the headline speeds went up, service delivery becomes impossible in the face of the marketing BS and here we are. Hi Ben, So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service, I pay for kilowatt-hours of usage. There are several problems transplanting that billing model to Internet service. The first you've already noticed - marketing activity has rendered it unsalable. But that's not the only problem. Another problem is that the price of electricity has been very stable for a very long time, as has the general character of devices which consume it. Consumers have a gut understanding of the cost of leaving the light on. But what is a byte? How much to load that web page? Watch that movie? And doesn't Moore's Law mean that 18 months from now it should cost half as much? If I can't tell whether or not I'm being ripped off, I'm probably being ripped off. A third problem is the whole regulated monopoly thing. The electric company had to be slapped down hard by the government to make its billing process fair. Anything we can do to avoid that fate is money in the bank, even if it means allowing the occasional customer to get more than he paid for. So if we can't bill you by usage, and at a consumer level we can't, then we have to find another way. Statistics and prayer isn't working out as well as we'd hoped so we're looking at double-billing schemes. Bad plan! Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, monitoring of quality and customer services.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: And doesn't Moore's Law mean that 18 months from now it should cost half as much? Maybe for the parts that are electrical, but for the parts that are optical, they may have a longer span. Also, not everyone swaps out those electrical parts every 18 months, business life-cycles typically dictate years. You don't replace your car stereo every 18 months (or maybe YOU do, but we're talking about the average consumer)... The issue here is cost of infrastructure. The last mile generally is more valuable than the long-distance part. Everyone can build a nationwide network for a nominal amount of money. All the carriers can provide circuits at the same IXPs where you can public/private peer. The question does become, who is in those smaller and mid-markets. Not everyone is going to build fiber in Akron, Eugene, nor Madison. It gets even more interesting if you look at what happened with Fairpoint in the northeast IMHO. Verizon realized they would not make money there and sold it off. The promises and costs consumed them and forced bankruptcy. I'm not saying that will happen to Comcast, but it may cause them to divest the unprofitable parts as well, leaving some parts of the country worse-off than we would be today. - Jared (these are my personal opinions, and not those of any employers current, past nor future)
Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
This little border skirmish is a good reminder that we build and operate one of the key battlegrounds on which all current and future wars are, and will be, fought. David On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/internet-traffic-reportedly-routed-chinese-servers/ -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
You and I both know that. I'll bet the vast majority of comcast customers don't. Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: William Warren hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com To: 'NANOG list' nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 01:24:40 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions On 11/29/2010 6:45 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: I think what this really boils down to is an effect of shoddy marketing. Access providers want to offer unlimited everything and don't want to have to go back to their customer base and say, oh, sorry, we didn't really mean unlimited. We didn't think you'd really use that much. So they are looking for ways of making up for the increased costs without having to look like idiots to their customers. Unlimited access is already NOT unlimited access. A transfer cap isn't unlimited..while Comcast has a generous cap..it's still a transfer cap. My problem is, what happens if this becomes the new model? What if Comcast comes to me and says, Oh, we've noticed X Mbits originating from your network coming through ours. Here's the bill of $X per bit. What happens when I counter with, Ok, and I see X bits originating from your network. Here's my bill, too. Do they agree to an exchange of money for an exchange of bits or do I get an F you. Pay your bill to us and we're not giving you crap.
Re: FUD: 15% of world's internet traffic hijacked
On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Bob Poortinga wrote: My concern is that this report will be presented to the US Congress without being refuted by experts in the know. My request is that someone with some gravitas please issue a press release setting the facts straight on this matter. I have been in contact with Dan Goodin at The Register but I'm just a lowly grunt with a small network. At the very least you might want to review: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/chinas-18-minute-mystery.shtml Renesys provides one data point but there are others that clearly show traffic routed *through* China (meaning they did indeed originate/hijack, and then pass data on to the original destination). Just because there are people in the know (or with gravitas) that don't post on nanog doesn't mean it didn't happen. -b
Brocade FCX 624/648 experiences?
Anyone with Brocade FCX 624/648 experience, please give me a shout off the list. Looking any feedback, bad or good. I am looking at a number of switches right now, the Brocade is one which looks interesting and isn't too badly priced. Thanks! -- Regards, Ulf.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:22:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: see craig's report from nanog47: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_ObserveReport_N47_Mon.pdf not for a time has Comcast been solely an 'eye-ball' network... or so they think. I think you are misreading the data. s/you are/Craig is/ I was just passing along a study presented at a nanog meeting about this kind of topic... I really do like to know next to nothing about peering. I have no idea in Comcast's case specifically, or in any recent case as my skin isn't in the game right now. However I am quite sure in the past I have delt with networks who wanted 2:1 on peering, but where I was nearly positive their customer base was 3:1 or 4:1. Basically the ratio became an excuse to depeer anyone they didn't like, it was all a sham. sure, there are more variables (I gather) than just bits in/out... like 'but my customers complain more if you are further away/slower/more-lossy' etc. None of those factors are in peering agreements I would bet, though clearly ratios are, so that stick is used to whack the other-guy over the head. But I come back to my fundamental beef with cable and DSL providers, when you're selling 50/5 (10:1 ratio), 25/5 (5:1 ratio), 12/2 (6:1 ratio) services, you can't expect to maintain a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio with your peers. web traffic (as a measure) seems to be ~10:1 when I look at my interface at home (vz-consumer-type), without packet-loss and over a decent sample of time. As with all of the 'peering disputes' over the last few years, it'll be a fun ride to watch from the outside :) -Chris
Re: Blocking International DNS
as for the alt root servers idea, in case you didnt see this: http://twitter.com/brokep/status/8779363872935936 (Nods to Richard Sexton :) /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
Hi, I am all up for any service that is compelling enough to inspire end user to spend their $s to use it. Where I get super pissy is when then content provider blame us for impairing their product innovation and how the network operators are the bad guys and should spend the money to give the service away for free when they launch it because they cant / wont push the value proposition. I do wonder who and why we are collectively upgrading our networks. At the end of the day we are in business to make money. -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: 30 November 2010 04:46 To: Ben Butler Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Ben Butler ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote: Ok, you have a point with SD vs HD which is encoded at 8 rather than 2 on our digital terrestrial and satellite broadcasters in the UK. So why 24mb or 50mb access speeds, what is it actually being used for, I do not believe that streamed video is the culprit here with most codecs doing about ~700 kbits. why NOT 24mb or 50mb or 500mb? what applications/innovations/ideas are being left on the table because folk can't do them in a reasonable period of time with 2mbps and longer queue times on their home network? If you could provision, cheaply, more bandwidth to the end-users in a community (or really several communities) do you think there would be new applications or new services provided to these folks? Video HD or SD is just one application/service... they get lots of hype today, but tomorrow what things may be possible? -chris -- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #00; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, monitoring of quality and customer services.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service, I pay for kilowatt-hours of usage. There are several problems transplanting that billing model to Internet service. The first you've already noticed - marketing activity has rendered it unsalable. But that's not the only problem. Not quite. Look at mobile data plans. A very few are unlimited, most are per byte. Another problem is that the price of electricity has been very stable for a very long time, as has the general character of devices which consume it. Consumers have a gut understanding of the cost of leaving the light on. But what is a byte? How much to load that web page? Watch that movie? And doesn't Moore's Law mean that 18 months from now it should cost half as much? If I can't tell whether or not I'm being ripped off, I'm probably being ripped off. Yep, sure seems that way when I get my mobile bill with roaming data charges. Consumers learn what it costs per byte, apps are created for them to manage their download amounts. Carriers send messages alerting consumers of their usage. A third problem is the whole regulated monopoly thing. The electric company had to be slapped down hard by the government to make its billing process fair. Anything we can do to avoid that fate is money in the bank, even if it means allowing the occasional customer to get more than he paid for. So if we can't bill you by usage, and at a consumer level we can't, then we have to find another way. Statistics and prayer isn't working out as well as we'd hoped so we're looking at double-billing schemes. Bad plan! If double billing is such a bad plan, what are your proposed alternatives? Andy Koch
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On 11/29/10 7:51 PM, Ben Butler wrote: In the Uk, we used to have 2MB DSL, and business providers like myself would happily provide it on the basis of CBR 2Mbit and we did'nt care what you did with it. 2Mbit is more than enough for streaming and I challenge anyone otherwise. While this whole discussion was going on, I took a break to watch Tears of the Sun on Netflix streaming via my Roku. The utilization looked like this: http://ninjamonkey.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/netflixonroku.png ~Seth
TWT - Comcast congestion
Anyone else seeing this or know the cause? 5: ash1-pr2-xe-2-3-0-0.us.twtelecom.net (66.192.244.214) 29.758ms 6: pos-3-11-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.145) asymm 11 846.582ms 7: pos-1-7-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.87.86) asymm 8 866.718ms 8: pos-1-11-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.221) asymm 10 879.171ms 9: pos-0-11-0-0-cr01.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.87.37) asymm 11 925.695ms 10: pos-0-12-0-0-cr01.sacramento.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.5) asymm 14 919.159ms We opened a ticket with TWT and were told we weren't the first to report the issue, but there was no ETR. I adjusted our routing to depreference TWT for reaching AS7922...which is kind of funny because Comcast clearly doesn't seem to want traffic via the route we're now sending it. 3356 7922 7922 7922 Don't want traffic via Level3...but can't take it via TWT?..I'll send it to you over Level3. At least that path works. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Blocking International DNS
Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law find yourself a ccTLD. Jeff On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote: as for the alt root servers idea, in case you didnt see this: http://twitter.com/brokep/status/8779363872935936 (Nods to Richard Sexton :) /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Re: Blocking International DNS
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said: Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law find yourself a ccTLD. Perhaps for his reasons at the time yes, but I'm applying it to the topic of the suspended-for-now-bill that allows blocking of any domain in the US. Alt root servers, as mentioned, would solve this. (And an encrypted p2p alt root system perhaps running on dynamic ports would be harder to block.) /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Re: Blocking International DNS
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said: Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law find yourself a ccTLD. Perhaps for his reasons at the time yes, but I'm applying it to the topic of the suspended-for-now-bill that allows blocking of any domain in the US. Alt root servers, as mentioned, would solve this. (And an encrypted p2p alt root system perhaps running on dynamic ports would be harder to block.) /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service, I pay for kilowatt-hours of usage. There are several problems transplanting that billing model to Internet service. The first you've already noticed - marketing activity has rendered it unsalable. But that's not the only problem. Not quite. Look at mobile data plans. A very few are unlimited, most are per byte. If the end user had to foot the real bill, providers would have incentive to innovate. We might have higher quality video that uses less bandwidth because consumers would demand it. If the user doesn't foot the bill, if the cost is some artificial flat rate and if the network attempts to tax the provider for it, it just doesn't work. It is subsidizing the end user by taxing the provider. It is sort of like having no personal income tax and trying to make the government supported only by business taxes. In that way, the end user has no real understanding of the real cost of it and it places a huge barrier of entry to production. If you so it the other way where the buyer actually pays for what they are using, market forces will produce efficiency. Also, increasing subscription for internet by $1 wouldn't be enough to make users switch but would (according to Wikipedia) generate an additional $15.930 million per month of revenue. Nearly $200 million per year will buy a fair amount of network upgrades. I am a believer in metered service, though. You pay for what you use.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: On 11/29/2010 07:55 PM, Ren Provo wrote: http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote: Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns around and charges us (providers) more to cover the additional money they have to pay Comcast now. In the meantime Comcast continues to undercut the market it sells into making it harder for me as a service provider to compete...that just isn't right. Maybe Comcast should raise their prices to their customers to cover the cost of upgrading there network, but then they wouldn't be able to undercut me anymore...monopolies are a dangerous thing! From the spectator sport perspective...I would have loved to see what would have happened had Level3 said essentially your customers want more data from me, go bill them for it. Would Comcast really de-peer Level3? Where would that 500Gbps of traffic try to flow? I rather doubt the TATA pathway would be able to take more than 20% of it before melting down; and it's pretty clear that Comcast has been working to phase out their previous relationship with GlobalCrossing, or at least to depreference it over other pathways, so I doubt it could pick up the slack. And, at the end of the day, if Comcast *did* try to call Level3's bluff, and depeered them...whose support phone lines would be likely to melt down first? Would the Comcast customers call Level3 to complain, or would they call Comcast to say what the hell, I pay $8.99/month to be able to stream Netflix, and now I can't reach them anymore--go fix it! It would be an ugly, ugly day for the US bits of the Internet...but it would be fun to watch from the sidelines. ^_^ Matt
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
AFAIC, Comcast really doesn't have a leg to stand on by doing this. Unfortunately L3 set a very bad precedent by caving into Comcast's pressure. Actually, by paying but crying foul, I think L3 is doing the best they can with a bad situation and as much as it pains me, I applaud L3 for this. The other options were: + Cave without crying foul -- Bad on both fronts. + Refuse -- Moral high ground, but, degraded service harmful to L3 and Comcast customers alike. I think it is better to try and preserve good user experiences and resolve the situation through diplomatic methods as L3 appears to be attempting to do. Hopefully this will lead to sufficient peer pressure (no pun intended) to get Comcast to eventually renege. Owen