Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
No matter what, Comcast is the loser. If subscribers can't access content they will be calling Comcast customer service. Only a small fraction of those subscribers will have any clue who L3 is or why that's important and even fewer will be understanding of Comcast's position. They're not in the position of power. L3 knows it and took the opportunity to make them look foolish. Either they're greedy or their price model is broken. Regardless, it's remains a Comcast problem. Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Kevin Blackham black...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 15:57, William Warren hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote: I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: http://market-ticker.org/post=173522 I don't think so. Let's do a little math exercise: Comcast charges me $75/mo for my pipe, but let's discount that for bundling, promos and lower tier services. $30-40 avg ok? For that money I get 250GB a month. Let's assume I actually use it - which I never do, even with Netflix, other VOD, and many habits common to eyeballs - but for the sake of a number to work with, I do. That's less than 1Mbps average per month. I'm not factoring in deviation from avg to peak, so I am going to assume 1Mbps per sub is peak per sub and 250GB is not the average for the user base. That is at least $40/Mbps paid by the eyeballs... or if I am very wrong, $20/Mbps. This is unsustainable and requires income at both ends for a healthy business model? I'm not convinced. Either I'm calculating something wrong, or greed is at work. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
Ben Butler wrote: 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. I became interested in these guys: http://www.plus.net/?home=hometop in 2008 because they were one of the first to use DPI (and admit it) to enforce their TOS. Every time I check their site (~every 8-10months), they seem to have won another award. Is 'Net Neutrality', the FCC, or something else preventing a model like this from having success in the U.S.? Or does it exixt and I just haven't heard about it? --Michael -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
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
It's a popular concept that competition will resolve NN concerns. A couple of weeks back I taped Barbara Van Schewick expounding on her theme that blocking, discrimination, and/or access charges, ARE acceptable if at the users - rather than provider's - discretion. http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1459 Afterwards, I asked her about the effect of competition. She remarked that, according to her research, countries with competition, such as the Euro unbundling regimes like the UK, actually had a much higher likelihood of such network management practices that the duopolist USA as the providers were under greater pressure to optimize the economic value of every bit put through. http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1459Plusnet's transparency would seem to be indicative of a trend toward Van Schewick style solutions, where user's have a bandwidth dashboard where they can opt to throttle application-by-application, plus possibly receive targeted ads, to get a cheaper connection. j On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote: Ben Butler wrote: 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. I became interested in these guys: http://www.plus.net/?home=hometop in 2008 because they were one of the first to use DPI (and admit it) to enforce their TOS. Every time I check their site (~every 8-10months), they seem to have won another award. Is 'Net Neutrality', the FCC, or something else preventing a model like this from having success in the U.S.? Or does it exixt and I just haven't heard about it? --Michael -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 -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
* Seth Mattinen: 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. Level 3 could do some routing tomography and make sure that Comcast receives the traffic in the most inconvenient way. -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 30/11/2010, at 6:17 PM, Kevin Blackham wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 15:57, William Warren hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote: I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: http://market-ticker.org/post=173522 I don't think so. Let's do a little math exercise: Comcast charges me $75/mo for my pipe, but let's discount that for bundling, promos and lower tier services. $30-40 avg ok? For that money I get 250GB a month. Let's assume I actually use it - which I never do, even with Netflix, other VOD, and many habits common to eyeballs - but for the sake of a number to work with, I do. That's less than 1Mbps average per month. I'm not factoring in deviation from avg to peak, so I am going to assume 1Mbps per sub is peak per sub and 250GB is not the average for the user base. Average is easy - but the not factoring in the deviation from avg to peak is basically ignoring the actual meat of the problem. The human being using a network wants a quite large instantaneous peak during, say, 5pm to 11pm week nights.If you're doing network dimensioning and look at the 5min/avg and assume that's enough then you're wrong and will see packet loss. The more customers the smoother the curve, but at the far edge of the network near the last mile where aggregation starts the difference in cost to cope with this starts to add up when you start doing it cookie cutter style over hundreds/thousands or more sites. Especially if these sites are remote and have power/size restrictions. MMC
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Joly MacFie wrote: Afterwards, I asked her about the effect of competition. She remarked that, according to her research, countries with competition, such as the Euro unbundling regimes like the UK, actually had a much higher likelihood of such network management practices that the duopolist USA as the providers were under greater pressure to optimize the economic value of every bit put through. I am not expert on the UK market, but I'd say the UK is a bad example of infrastructure unbundling. For unbundling to be successful, there needs to be the possibility of having rented (decent price) L1 connectivity to the COs as well as L1 to the customers. Without all of this in place, true competition can't happen. One needs to look at the whole supply chain so that there is L1 all the way, as soon as someone puts L2 or higher equipment in the way and there is only 1-2 suppliers of this service, it doesn't matter if you have a bazillion ISPs, the market still won't work. Recipe for success is to have a neutral entity whose business idea is to rent out fiber to anyone who wants to rent it, and who goes all the way to residential customers. Aggregate at nodes with several thousand households and let ISPs colocate at these nodes to reach end users. Think COs but instead of copper, use fiber, and the entitity who owns this doesn't do anything but L1. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
aka the Australian NBN model ? Or taking the Allied Fiber 'real-estate' model to the edge. It's not beyond possibility that some US muni's may go for it. j Recipe for success is to have a neutral entity whose business idea is to rent out fiber to anyone who wants to rent it, and who goes all the way to residential customers. Aggregate at nodes with several thousand households and let ISPs colocate at these nodes to reach end users. Think COs but instead of copper, use fiber, and the entitity who owns this doesn't do anything but L1. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore 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 So in this particular game of chicken, Comcast wins. Shame that L3 agreed to this, sets a bad precedent. I have to imagine that Comcast would have been the worse for wear, their phone lines would have lit up like a Christmas tree -- why can't I access...? jy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iF4EAREIAAYFAkz04QkACgkQxvthcni5E2+LwgD+NAie3r+r1dniJNRPMVKAJEj7 BQIympMzCXji7NveWicA/ReSLZgW92LT4cY/yMnsw3EkrD8mL1rkhAzicifOoCwe =GPm+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
It may have something to do with that Level3 is now hosting all the streaming content for Netflixs. Cheers Ryan -Original Message- From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:52 PM To: Rettke, Brian; Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list; Guerra, Ruben Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions 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-statemen t-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 ConcerningComcast'sActions
On the subject of marketing for years the wireless operators sold unlimited data plans. Now they are coming back and saying well unlimited is really 5 GB. -Original Message- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 11:17 PM To: Ben Butler Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'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: [v6ops] Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: If you're looking for serious feedback: We are. 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. :) I seem to remember one of the authors of the initial RFCs telling us that they went with field with the understanding that it's so generic that someone could/would think of something else down the road. I didn't have time to really search for that mail, though. The fact that GMail is refusing to display quite a few mails atm (or serve them via SMTP) does not help, either. Most of my draft-related emails are amongst that... To give a short summary of the current status: Hextet received the most votes by far, followed by quibble. Everything else didn't get nearly as much support. Quad has been suggested a lot of times, but its meaning within the C/C++ world and very frequent use within the Kame stack sadly makes this a no-go. Quibble already has a meaning in English and a negative one, at that. Hextet is incorrect if you are being pedantic, but it's reasonably unique so that you don't have to call it IPv6 hextet to avoid confusion. Given all of the above, my personal opinion is that hextet will come out as the winner. Richard PS: Thanks to Joel. I was contemplating how to refocus the whole thing and he did our job for us; and nicely.
Re: experience with equinix exchange
Re, meh...@akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) wrote: 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? Not really, but that's probably typical. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/Snowhorn-NOTA_Update.pdf mentions 170+Gbps for NOTA, but that was 1.5 years ago. Yours, Elmar. -- Machen Sie sich erst einmal unbeliebt. Dann werden Sie auch ernstgenommen. (Konrad Adenauer) --[ ELMI-RIPE ]--- pgpxOLVTci4Se.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
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. Whatever marketing feel like, there is no absolute High Definition, it's really Higher Definition where the reference is undefined. When access speeds get to 1Gbit/s they'll no doubt be unhappy that we may stream something like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2010/10/super-hi-vision-trials If you make it they will fill it. brandon
Re: Ratios peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus Global Center to agree to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is history. Patrick - Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history: In summer of 1997, GTEi did indeed have a dispute with Exodus regarding traffic levels on peering interconnects, and indicated that it would cease peering. On 16 Sep 1998, the dispute was resolved when Exodus signed an agreement with GTEi which was covered by non-disclosure at Exodus's request[1][2]. Peering is a business relationship. If your company can make more or spend less by peering with another company, you should do it. If you do not consummate that relationship, you are hurting your business. This should be the only reason to peer or not peer. Correct, and indeed that was basic principle in operation during the GTEi/Exodus peering dispute. FYI, /John CTO Emeritus BBN/GTEi [1] http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/44421/Exodus-GTE-Increase-Traffic-Exchanges.htm [2] http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1998-09/msg00373.html
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Bret Clark 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. Why don't you, and other providers, demand L3 give you the same settlement-free peering they want from Comcast? Then you won't need to pay L3 anything because of L3's deal with Comcast? Oh, what? You say that L3 won't peer with you on a settlement-free basis, L3 wants you to pay them? Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? Peering battles are so much fun because every side can think up all sorts of reasons why they should or should not pay or be paid. There is no right or wrong answer.
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: I will be the first to advocate the government use minimal to no regulation where there is active competition and consumer choice, and thus folks can vote with their dollars. Broadband in the US is not in that boat. Too many consumers have a choice of a single provider. The vast majority of the rest have the choice of two providers. We make these monopoly or I believe regulation of peering among the largest networks in the U.S. is a question of when and how, not if. The more these incidents make it into the news and attract the attention of public policy-makers, the closer that when may become. Comcast is either very clever, or very stupid, for timing this in such a way that it has been spun into an issue of who is streaming what into their customers' living rooms. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)
Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio. -cjp
Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)
Any Greybar should have them, but they're not going to do you any favors on price. -wil On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio. -cjp
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/30/2010 07:59 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a compeititor. Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business and so they are strong arming other providers to affect Netflix's business model. But as others have stated what would happen if Comcast starts coming after every service provider's hosting services that Comcast doesn't like? Bret
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a compeititor. Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business and so they are strong arming other providers to affect Netflix's business model. But as others have stated what would happen if Comcast starts coming after every service provider's hosting services that Comcast doesn't like? Comcast claims it offered Level3 the same CDN deal it has with other Netflix CDN competitors. Level3 didn't want the same deal. According to Comcast, Level 3 wants a 'special' deal. Of course, Level 3 spins it the other way and claims that it offered Comcast a settlement-free deal, but Comcast didn't want it now. Level 3 has been trying to strong arm other providers for a decade. MCI, Sprint, ANS, UUNET, and others lost in history, have been doing it even longer. As BBN showed with the WORLDCOM/MCI/UUNET merger, now is an opportune time for Level 3 to obtain concessions from Comcast. Its always fun watching one long time toll-booth operator (Level 3) complain when someone new sets up another toll-booth (Comcast).
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: 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. The US ATSC standard specifies aspect ratios and resolution, but does not mention compression (nor does the FCC). http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html Since a 19 Mhz on-air channel is allocated to HDTV, but need not be fully used, the broadcasters can compress more and use the remaining bandwidth for data or other multicast channels (which may or may not have anything to do with IP multicast). Whatever marketing feel like, there is no absolute High Definition, it's really Higher Definition where the reference is undefined. When access speeds get to 1Gbit/s they'll no doubt be unhappy that we may stream something like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2010/10/super-hi-vision-trials Just wait till people start doing true holography, where 1 Gbps is likely to seem like a rather low bandwidth. Regards Marshall If you make it they will fill it. brandon
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
replies inline On 11/30/2010 12:09 AM, Andrew Koch wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrinb...@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. I don't know of a single data plan that's unlimited. they all have either 5 gig or lower transfer caps. That's not unlimited no matter what the lawyers or marketers day. Andy Koch
Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Hiers hie...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Too much SciFi, nothing better and more effective than a fully loaded ol'gun, the bigger the better, also if it can fly remotely operated. -J
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore 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 So in this particular game of chicken, Comcast wins. Shame that L3 agreed to this, sets a bad precedent. I have to imagine that Comcast would have been the worse for wear, their phone lines would have lit up like a Christmas tree -- why can't I access...? jy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iF4EAREIAAYFAkz04QkACgkQxvthcni5E2+LwgD+NAie3r+r1dniJNRPMVKAJEj7 BQIympMzCXji7NveWicA/ReSLZgW92LT4cY/yMnsw3EkrD8mL1rkhAzicifOoCwe =GPm+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has become the gateway to the ultimate in network control...while it's the provider's prerogative who access their network..peering has become a club for access and has become the instrument of removing the basic design wins of the internet.
Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)
On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio. -cjp Graybar is not too far away. There might also be an Anixter within range. (Graybar is in Sterling near the south end of IAD) Owen
Re: Ratios peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus Global Center to agree to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is history. Patrick - Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history: In summer of 1997, GTEi did indeed have a dispute with Exodus regarding traffic levels on peering interconnects, and indicated that it would cease peering. On 16 Sep 1998, the dispute was resolved when Exodus signed an agreement with GTEi which was covered by non-disclosure at Exodus's request[1][2]. Well... Yes, Exodus signed an agreement under NDA and GTE got their ounce of flesh from Exodus, but, Patrick is correct in that GTE did not continue to extort GC and Above and got a much smaller reward than they were initially seeking (pound of flesh). The result of the NDA, however, was that from outside perceptions, it all looked like GTEi blinked, which, was very good for the industry. It would have been better if certain players on the Exodus side hadn't been quite so spineless, but, I guess to satisfy Godwin's law one can only say they were following the example of the French in early WWII. Peering is a business relationship. If your company can make more or spend less by peering with another company, you should do it. If you do not consummate that relationship, you are hurting your business. This should be the only reason to peer or not peer. Correct, and indeed that was basic principle in operation during the GTEi/Exodus peering dispute. Sort of. It was clearly in GTEi and Exodus interest to continue exchanging traffic and obviously would have hurt both companies had actual depeering occurred. The question is which company would have been harmed the most and thus succumbed to settling the dispute. Owen
Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
Not if it's traffic is re-routed/compromised. ;) Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: Too much SciFi, nothing better and more effective than a fully loaded also if it can fly remotely operated. -J -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
William, Why be concerned? Operators have pulled this trick several times over the course of history and each time the good guys prevail. It proves that the system works. Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM, William Warren hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote: On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore 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 So in this particular game of chicken, Comcast wins. Shame that L3 agreed to this, sets a bad precedent. I have to imagine that Comcast would have been the worse for wear, their phone lines would have lit up like a Christmas tree -- why can't I access...? jy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iF4EAREIAAYFAkz04QkACgkQxvthcni5E2+LwgD+NAie3r+r1dniJNRPMVKAJEj7 BQIympMzCXji7NveWicA/ReSLZgW92LT4cY/yMnsw3EkrD8mL1rkhAzicifOoCwe =GPm+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has become the gateway to the ultimate in network control...while it's the provider's prerogative who access their network..peering has become a club for access and has become the instrument of removing the basic design wins of the internet. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Telstra Breakup (Was Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions)
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:56:10AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote: I've read through the entire thread thus far, and there are several very interesting points. I'd like to know more about the Australian experiment? For those not watching the news: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86782/20101130/telstra-nbn-deal-set-to-reshape-australia-s-telecommunication-industry.htm http://www.theage.com.au/national/parliament-approves-telstra-split-20101129-18dy0.html The summary is that Australian Parliament just voted to break up Telstra (which is partially state owned) into two parts. At a high level it is supposed to be a split between wholesale (wires in the ground) and retain (services on top). The idea is to enable better retail competition. I've not seen any reporting with enough details to figure out yet exactly how this is going to work, and thus if this has a chance of working. Still, it makes sense. Infrastructure in the ground is expensive, and should be done once. I have one power feed to my house, one water line, one telephone line, one cable TV line. They are all provided by or regulated by the government. The Internet will get to the same point one day, fiber to the home will be standard and able to offer all the services a residential user needs. I think this is why the telcos and cable cos fight municipal broadband networks so strongly, they know they cannot compete (as well) in that market. Anyway, I think we should all keep an eye on Australia. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpNo7ECsab6H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On 11/30/2010 9:06 AM, William Warren wrote: This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has become the gateway to the ultimate in network control...while it's the provider's prerogative who access their network..peering has become a club for access and has become the instrument of removing the basic design wins of the internet. For a home user, it means knowledge and ability to setup a tunnel to somewhere else to receive the traffic. For netflix, you could setup a v6 tunnel and stream it via ipv6.netflix.com. Jack
Re: starwars.com subdomain hijacked?
Novator (Canadian web-shopping company, used to be FTD's big partner) is
responsible for shop.starwars.com so I think all that's happened here is
Novator forgot to renew a domain.
domainsatcost.ca is rebel.com is Momentous.ca and they own
yourdomainhasexpired.com.
-Rich
On 22 Nov 10, at 12:19 PM, Matt Disuko wrote:
I'm surprised by the sequence of events here..
domain novator2.com is registered with DomainsAtCost.ca.
domain novator2.com expires...
gets picked up by the administrators of yourdomainhasexpired.com -
Rebel.com? 1550507.ca?
;; ANSWER SECTION:
shop.starwars.com. 1655IN CNAME shop.starwars.novator2.com.
shop.starwars.novator2.com. 1655 IN A 74.54.152.75
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
novator2.com. 160201 IN NS dns2.yourdomainhasexpired.com.
novator2.com. 160201 IN NS dns.yourdomainhasexpired.com.
Redir'd to a advert site, instead of a default DomainsAtCost.ca holding
page or...nowhere.
Apparently quickly renewed and given back to the original owners.
Who's at play here? Does DomainsAtCost have a deal with Rebel.com? Or are
they the same company?
It all seems fishy to me. Is this normal practice?
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:05:21 -0500
From: k...@sizone.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: starwars.com subdomain hijacked?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:49:48AM -0800, Wil Schultz said:
Appears that it's a CNAME for shop.starwars.novator2.com.
The expiry day is 11/22/2011, so if I were to guess I would think that the
domain expired, sent to an advert page, and was just renewed.
-wil
Smartest attack is to put up a page that looks exactly the same as the
legit site, but with your own cheaper crappier knockoff starwars paraphenalia
('duke', 'tewey', 'princess luba') that you sell instead and make the huge
profits.
Not to give anyone any ideas that werent obvious like 15 years ago.
How anyone can tell the internet is legit at a glance is beyond me. Need
to hookup firefox's security warning to my speakers to get a modicum of
alert that SSL is busted, to start, nevermind anything more creative.
That phishers manage to fake sites that look wrong is also beyond me, what's
so hard about 'save page as'?
/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.
--
Rich Lafferty
r...@lafferty.ca
Re: Ratios peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:47:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Ratios were an excuse used by GTEi to try and force Exodus, Above.Net, and Global Center to pay for peering back in 1998. It had a valid, technical reason behind it - the cost of bit-miles.[*] Unfortunately, most people have forgotten this and simply claim one side is more 'valuable' than the other. In reality, the value of a relationship is NOT related to the number of bits flowing in either direction. [snip] [*] 10 second explanation for those who do not understand: I hand you a small HTTP GET request, you carry it across the country. You had me a 1500 byte web page, I carry it across the country. My costs are much higher than yours, you need to compensate me for the additional costs. I don't know how much GTEi specifically played into this, but this is all one of the reasons AboveNet actually asked peers for MEDs and honored them. AboveNet had many peers that sent useful MEDs (typically from IGP cost on the other side) and routed based on them. That completely flips the cost. I agree it's important to look at such issues when peering, because it should be fair for some approximation of fair. However if folks really wanted fair they would look at technical solutions like MEDs, selective routing, peering with regional ASN's, etc. I'll also point out that it's my feeling that over time the issue you describe has become less important. When we were paying $50,000 a month for an OC-3 across country the bit-mile cost was huge, and moving those extra bits was a huge deal. Now you can get a cross country 10GE wave for $5,000 a month. A large part of this discussion is about the cost of providing bandwidth at the edge. I would venture for most residential end-user providers somewhere between 75-90% of the infrastructure cost is from the customer prem to the POP in the nearest major city. Sort of the extended last mile, if you will. The last 10-25% is the backbone cost, city to city transport, peering, etc.I think that ratio is increasing over time, in another 10 years I expect it will be 90-95% local cost, and 5-10% backbone cost. I said before, ratio is an outdated concept, and getting more so by the day. That doesn't mean ignore it, or don't understand it, but folks who are depeering based on ratio are either living in the past, or using it as a straight up excuse for their real motivations. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgp0DrBksnhHo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote: 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. They're an eyes network. What do they expect? Look at typical traffic profiles for home users. They send out tiny requests, and receive big packets of data (web pages, images, streaming media). I find it ironic that when we were an eyes network of dial-up users, we bought transit to bring traffic in for our customers. Now that we're a hosting network and our transit bandwidth is lopsided the other direction, the big eyes networks are saying we should pay them to deliver the traffic their customers request. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: wikileaks unreachable
On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: anyone know why https://www.wikileaks.org/ is not reachable? nations state level censors trying to close the barn door after the horse has left? randy That was two days ago - as of this morning, there is apparently another From @wikileaks on twitter wikileaks WikiLeaks DDOS attack now exceeding 10 Gigabits a second. 1 hour ago wikileaks WikiLeaks We are currently under another DDOS attack. Marshall
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM, William Warren hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote: On 11/30/2010 12:09 AM, Andrew Koch wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrinb...@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. I don't know of a single data plan that's unlimited. they all have either 5 gig or lower transfer caps. That's not unlimited no matter what the lawyers or marketers day. William, My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. IIRC, Clear's 4G service has no monthly cap. Regardless, we were talking about residential Internet, not mobile Internet. There's a market expectation that mobile systems cost more than their wireline counterparts and have usage-based billing even if their wireline counterparts don't. Moving the market expectations for wireline Internet in the face of your competitor's ability to move a different way is tough. This, by the way, is where Verizon is going to take some of you to the cleaners. With fiber all the way to the premises and control of the key transit-free who everyone else either peers with or pays, they can jack up their data capacity much more cost effectively than you can. And let's face it, when they tell you that you're upgrading your peering port from 10G to 100G in order to keep it, you will comply rather than lose reciprocal peering. The more you complain, the rosier they'll smell replying that, Oh, we don't see the problem. We just increased our data rates. We only see a need for caution on the highly competitive wireless side which because of competition doesn't need regulation anyway. 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 Concerning Comcast'sActions
On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon Wireless as a high level blackberry tech in the local call center - they quietly added the cap to all plans over the past year after adding all these little disclaimers to sales docs, websites, etc. She came home and warned us one day that our EVDO modem on the business account was now capped, even though it was originally 'unlimited'. IIRC, they'll start billing you per megabyte or gigabyte after 5GB. I've not had an oppertunity to test this, so I'm only going by what I was told. IIRC, Clear's 4G service has no monthly cap. It does, 5GB as well, but I believe they throttle you down majorly once you hit the cap. I'll keep my eyes on the fine print next time I see a Clear commercial here. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
I just wanted to stop and say I'm glad we can have this kind of debate :) I think we need to start with education at every level. Watching 1-2 movies a day, some additional streaming content, using the VoIP phone whenever, and surfing the web is normal behavior. Running occasional P2P is normal behavior. You'd never leave the water running all day, even though if you rent it probably wouldn't cost you any more (landlord usually pays for water). It's not simply a question of what can I get, it's a question of being a good internet citizen. There will never be a network so robust that everyone in the world could go full throttle all the time at the same time, so we have to share. I myself am against a lot of regulation of the free market. I want to be able to use P2P without it being relegated to scavenger, though I don't use it all the time. I want to watch Hulu or Discovery or Netflix when something is on that I want to see. I've heard of and seen implemented some rather generous leaking token bucket scenarios that keep the average user unaware of any bandwidth restrictions, while causing slower service for those people that use everything at full speed all the time. Since I pay the same (or more) than most of the other shared media users for my service, I think that is a good implementation of fair use. They can still use critical services, VoIP, HTTP, and some video, but they don't get the same kind of full-throttle download anymore. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: On the subject of marketing for years the wireless operators sold unlimited data plans. Now they are coming back and saying well unlimited is really 5 GB. the biggest problem I have with these is the fact that a single software update is now approaching 1GB, burning 20% of that cap quickly. - Jared
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
MetroPCS also offers unlimited EVDO. Owen On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote: On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon Wireless as a high level blackberry tech in the local call center - they quietly added the cap to all plans over the past year after adding all these little disclaimers to sales docs, websites, etc. She came home and warned us one day that our EVDO modem on the business account was now capped, even though it was originally 'unlimited'. IIRC, they'll start billing you per megabyte or gigabyte after 5GB. I've not had an oppertunity to test this, so I'm only going by what I was told. IIRC, Clear's 4G service has no monthly cap. It does, 5GB as well, but I believe they throttle you down majorly once you hit the cap. I'll keep my eyes on the fine print next time I see a Clear commercial here. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On 11/30/2010 10:23 AM, Rettke, Brian wrote: I think we need to start with education at every level. Watching 1-2 movies a day, some additional streaming content, using the VoIP phone whenever, and surfing the web is normal behavior. Running occasional P2P is normal behavior. What are you using to determine normal? Here's the deal. The more bandwidth the average household has, the more the bandwidth content providers will push. When we were mostly dialup, heavy flash/video/content was a rarity. Now that people have much higher speeds, making dialup friendly pages is a rarity. You'd never leave the water running all day, even though if you rent it probably wouldn't cost you any more (landlord usually pays for water). It's not simply a question of what can I get, it's a question of being a good internet citizen. There will never be a network so robust that everyone in the world could go full throttle all the time at the same time, so we have to share. While I agree with the sentiment, my household is way over your so-called normal. My son falls asleep with a video stream running (no different than falling asleep with tv going, except his favorite stream never stops streaming). My wife usually falls asleep with the wii streaming something on netflix (which does stop streaming eventually). During an average day, my son, wife, mother-in-law, and myself probably watch a combined total of 12 hours of video streaming (not uncommon for 3 streams to run simultaneously to 1 computer and 2 tv's and many are auto detecting and bumping to HD with higher bandwidth usage as content providers improve their offerings). Then there's the MMO's, the iso downloads, the video conferencing to relatives all over the world. We aren't abusive users. We don't leave p2p seeding applications 24/7/365. We usually try not to leave streams running when we aren't there (though like any television, sometimes it does get left on). Jack (Internet TV only for 2 years now)
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:47 AM, George Bonser wrote: Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business and so they are strong arming other providers to affect Netflix's business model. But as others have stated what would happen if Comcast starts coming after every service provider's hosting services that Comcast doesn't like? Bret I think it has more to do with this: http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_16526623?source =rss The cable companies are losing subs at an increasing rate. People are using them for internet and not buying the television programming. If Comcast can't collect from their cord-cutting customers, then they will collect from the content providers whose products their customers are using. I have been told that cutting the cord are the 3 most frightening words in the cable industry today. IMO, they need to see that they are service providers, not gate-keepers. I am afraid that the Level-3 response here may help them to cling on to the legacy business model and avoid facing the new situation before them. Regards Marshall
Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes: On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio. -cjp Graybar is not too far away. There might also be an Anixter within range. (Graybar is in Sterling near the south end of IAD) They are in Sterling, but the near the south end of IAD address is in Chantilly (they were on Westfax Dr). They moved from there several years ago. 45145 Ocean Court Sterling, VA 20166-2345 (703) 631-8600 gmaps is correct. note that relocation drive is not accessible directly from 28. -r
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
I used to have an unlimited EVDO service from Sprint, when they changed to 5GB I called to complain and was advised that my plan was grandfathered, my new limit 5GB but with $0/GB overage. Jeff On Nov 30, 2010 11:24 AM, Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote: On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Inclu... Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon Wireless as a high level blackberry tech in the local call center - they quietly added the cap to all plans over the past year after adding all these little disclaimers to sales docs, websites, etc. She came home and warned us one day that our EVDO modem on the business account was now capped, even though it was originally 'unlimited'. IIRC, they'll start billing you per megabyte or gigabyte after 5GB. I've not had an oppertunity to test this, so I'm only going by what I was told. IIRC, Clear's 4G service has no monthly cap. It does, 5GB as well, but I believe they throttle you down majorly once you hit the cap. I'll keep my eyes on the fine print next time I see a Clear commercial here. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco
I am assist a small cable system that is using cogeco as their backbone provider, and am running into some issues. I was wondering if anyone else has had sucess working with them. My issues are the following. 1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told they do not do static routes when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of /30. Their suggested meathod is to put a router running proxy arp in front of my CMTS. I am trying to escalate my case, but it looks like I am being forced into some kind of proxy-arp setup. --- Brian Raaen Network Architech
RE: Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco
1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told they do not do static routes when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of /30. Their suggested meathod is to put a router running proxy arp in front of my CMTS. I am trying to escalate my case, but it looks like I am being forced into some kind of proxy-arp setup. They won't speak BGP with you?
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes. In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what. I'd never really paid attention to how Netflix delivers its content. It's obviously a lot of bandwidth, and likely part of the issue here so I thought I would investigate. Apparently Akamai has been the primary Netflix streaming source since March. LimeLight Networks has been a secondary provider, and it would appear those two make up the vast majority of Netflix's actual streaming traffic. I can't tell if Netflix does any streaming out of their own ASN, but if they do it appears to be minor. Here's a reference from the business side of things: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/11/netflix-takes-streaming-to-a-new-level.aspx This is also part of the reason I went back to the very first message in this thread to reply: In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:28:18PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore 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 works for Akamai, it seems likely he might know more about what is going on. Likely he can't discuss the details, but wanted to seed a discussion. I'd say that worked well. I happen to be a Comcast cable modem customer. Gooling for people who had issues getting to Netflix streaming turned up plenty of forum posts with traceroutes to Netflix servers on Akamai and Limelight. I did traceroutes to about 20 of them from my cable modem, and it's clear Comcast and Akamai and Comcast and Limelight are interconnected quite well. Akamai does not sell IP Transit, and I'm thinking it is extremely unlikely that Comcast is buying transit from Limelight. I will thus conclude that these are either peering relationships, or that they have cut some sort of special CDN Interconnect deal with Comcast. But what about Level 3? One of my friends I was chatting with on AIM said they thought Comcast was a Level 3 customer, at least at one time. Google to the rescue again. Level 3 provides fiber to Comcast (20 year deal in 2004): http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/level-3-and-comcast.asp Level 3 provides voice services/support to Comcast: http://cable.tmcnet.com/news/2005/jul/1168088.htm Perhaps the most interesting though is looking up an IP on Comcast's local network here in my city in L3's looking glass: http://lg.level3.net/bgp/bgp.cgi?site=sjo1target=68.86.240.141 Slightly reformatting for your viewing pleasure, along with my comments: Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer # Level 3 thinks they are a customer United_States San_Jose EU_Suppress_to_Peers Suppress_to_AS174 # Cogent Suppress_to_AS1239# Sprint Suppress_to_AS1280# ISC Suppress_to_AS1299# Telia Suppress_to_AS1668# AOL Suppress_to_AS2828# XO Suppress_to_AS2914# NTT Suppress_to_AS3257# TiNet Suppress_to_AS3320# DTAG Suppress_to_AS3549# GBLX Suppress_to_AS3561# Savvis Suppress_to_AS3786# LG DACOM Suppress_to_AS4637# Reach Suppress_to_AS5511# OpenTransit Suppress_to_AS6453# Tata Suppress_to_AS6461# AboveNet Suppress_to_AS6762# Seabone Suppress_to_AS7018# ATT Suppress_to_AS7132# ATT (ex SBC) So it would appear Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3 (along with buying a lot of other services from them). I'm going to speculate that the list of supressed ASN's are peers of both Level 3 and Comcast, and Comcast is going that so those peers can't send some traffic through Level 3 in attempt to game the ratios on their direct connections to Comcast. Now a more interesting picture emerges. Let me emphasize that this is AN EDUCATED GUESS on my part, and I can't prove any of it. Level 3 starts talking to Netflix, and offers them a sweetheart deal to move traffic from Akamai to Level 3. Part of the reason they are willing to go so low on the price to Netflix is they will get to double dip by charging Netflix for the bits and charging Comcast for the bits, since Comcast is a customer! But wait, they also get to triple dip, they provide the long haul fiber to Comcast, so when Comcast needs more capacity to get to the peering points to move the traffic that money also goes back to Level 3! Patrick, from Akamai, is
Re: Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:02:07PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: 1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told they do not do static routes when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of /30. Their suggested meathod is to put a router running proxy arp in front of my CMTS. I am trying to escalate my case, but it looks like I am being forced into some kind of proxy-arp setup. They won't speak BGP with you? That's an intresting suggestion, but isn't a option in this particular case. --- Brian Raaen Network Architech
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote: On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. Its 5GB, trust me on that one. I checked it out when I updated my credit card number online recently. The billing page has a place to describe a cap and overage charges. It's listed as unlimited. Not saying you're wrong. Just saying that the billing documentation disagrees. -Bill -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: wireless data caps [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions]
-- Original Message --- From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us Sent: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:17:45 -0500 I checked it out when I updated my credit card number online recently. The billing page has a place to describe a cap and overage charges. It's listed as unlimited. Not saying you're wrong. Just saying that the billing documentation disagrees. It's 'unlimited' up to 5Gb -- big lawyers make that work I guess. And yes I've also been grandfathered in from almost 8 years ago when I first got it -- for these types of accounts they shut you off instead of billing overusage. -Randy
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Maybe I am oversimplifying this a bit, but the way I see this situation is this: 1. L3 is carrying traffic for a popular service 2. Comcast customers want that service. 3. Comcast and L3 peer with each other (i.e. very little cost for either) (So, Comcast is paying very little to get that data into their network) 5. Comcast wants L3 to pay them for the traffic (WTF?) Nobody pays me for bandwidth that *I* request and use. That is just ridiculous. I wonder how Comcast would feel if L3 said screw it, and sent all the traffic a different route. If it routed through a different provider (lets say ProviderX), would Comcast try to get ProviderX to pay for traffic it was sending? -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President, IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (419)739-9240, x1
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote:
...
Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's
clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business
and so they are strong arming other providers to affect Netflix's business
model. But as others have stated what would happen if Comcast starts coming
after every service provider's hosting services that Comcast doesn't like?
Comcast claims it offered Level3 the same CDN deal it has with other Netflix
CDN competitors. Level3 didn't want the same deal. According to
Comcast, Level 3 wants a 'special' deal. Of course, Level 3 spins it the
other way and claims that it offered Comcast a settlement-free deal, but
Comcast didn't want it now.
Keep in mind that the previous CDN deal that Comcast had was
*charging* Akamai to host servers within the Comcast network, at
least according to the scuttlebutt from the grapevine. Long-time
listeners will recall that Patrick had long been talking about how
Akamai doesn't run a backbone. Don't know if that's still true or not.
Level3 _does_ run a backbone, and their normal model for handling
traffic is to carry it along the backbone, and exchange it at major
exchange locations; building racks in someone else's datacenter
probably isn't their normal mode of operation, so it could be somewhat
understandable as to why they might not have been as excited as
Akamai was to pay for space, power, and bandwidth inside of
Comcast's datacenters.
I'm not sure I like the idea of pushing the Internet in the direction of
putting copies of popular web sites into every eyeball network; if we're
going to move in that direction, why not have the websites just email
disks with content to the end users, and bypass the last mile network
entirely?
(oh, right, Netflix already had that model)
Or, we could build a series of private networks, and depending on which
network you chose to connect to, you can only access the content
housed within the walls of that network. Get on NBC/Universal/Comcast,
and you can only view their HuluPlus video streams.
(oh, right--we had that too, with Prodigy/AOL/Compuserv)
It really looks like someone is trying to wind back the clock, stuff
the genie back in the bottle, and put the model for the internet back
the way it was in the good old days of the walled gardens. It will be
interesting to see whether the rest of the community feels like the
good old days really were a better model for the Internet or not.
*fetches popcorn, and kicks back to watch history {refold|unfold further}*
Matt
(speaking only for myself, with no true knowledge of the inside situations
at any of these companies; everything mentioned here is pure hearsay,
with no basis in established fact or reality. All opinions are mine, and
mine alone; if my employer wants them, they'll have to pay extra for them,
and I rather doubt they'd want them that badly.)
[NANOG-announce] Reminder: Today is the last day to register for NANOG 51 at the early bird rate
Register today to get the early bird rate. Looking forward to seeing you in Miami. Dave (for the NANOG PC) ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:29:31 -0500 (EST) From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org 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. We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As far as I can see, Comcast is congested, at least at Equinix in San Jose. Since this is all over private connections (at least in our case), the fabric is not an issue. Maybe they will be using the money from Level(3) to increase capacity on the peerings with the transit providers. (Or maybe not.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Re: Ratios peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, 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. ... [*] 10 second explanation for those who do not understand: I hand you a small HTTP GET request, you carry it across the country. You had me a 1500 byte web page, I carry it across the country. My costs are much higher than yours, you need to compensate me for the additional costs. Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the content providers also turn off SACK, and force ACKs for each packet, they can achieve nearly the perfect traffic ratios the eyeball networks seem to desire. Small packet one way, equivalent small packet the other way, and everyone is happy. Obviously those recent infidels pushing for the so-called Jumbo Frames here on NANOG were nothing more than shills for the eyeball networks, seeking to get more and more networks out of ratio, in an effort to get them to cough up money. Fie on them, I say--instead of JumboFrames, we need MicroFrames! Exchange points should start enforcing a maximum frame size of 64 bytes, to truly bring the internet into perfectly-balanced ratio-ness. Matt (*in search of forceps to extract a tongue planted far too forcefully into the cheek*)
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Does build it, and they will come now become a business liability? Yes, a business should stake out appropriate agreements in order to ensure relevant product delivery, but they also shouldn't be punished (for lack of a better word) for not foreseeing the success of said product- perhaps a share the wealth mentality is in effect here?
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
A follow on to my post, because it's got me thinking about Network Neutrality. What we have is old world scenarios not matching the new world order. Let's do some diagrams. The way things used to be, scenario #1: Segment ASegment B Segment C Segment D | | | Server--- ---ISP #1--- ---ISP #2--- ---Client Back in the day, the server operator paid for segments A and B, the client paid for segments C and D. The peering between the two ISP's was about making sure the costs of Segment B and Segment C were approximately the same, in the aggregate. The first evolution of this was for the folks running the servers to merge with ISP #1, creating a generation of data center based content ISP's, typically located in or near major US exchange points. In essence this made the picture look like scenario #2: Segment B Segment C Segment D | | Server ISP--- ---ISP #2--- ---Client This made a lot of folks like ISP #2 unhappy. Their segment C costs remained the same, but by consolidating and shrinking the costs of segments A and B into a much shorter B the server side folks were seen as not taking their fair share of the costs. This lead to peering friction between these folks. The server folks cried foul, after all it cost millions to build out infrastructure in all of these locations, so while their backbone cost was not as high, they were eating a lot of cost in space and power and servers. The second evolution though was the CDN, which in fact didn't do a backbone at all. They said rather than buy colo space, or build our own colos all of which is expensive, we'll take the money we would have spent on colo and give it directly to ISP #2, for space and power very near the end users. This gives us scenario #3. Segment B Segment C Segment D | | Rest of the Internet--- ---ISP #2+-- ---Client | +-- ---Server The ISP #2 guys loved this, finally a way for them to cut backbone costs, and in fact the server folks were willing to pay them for the privilege. Now, what does this have to do with network neutrality? Well, I've never seen a good definition of what the term really means, but there seems to generally be a feeling that folks should be able to gain access to consumers (the Clients) on more or less a fair and level playing field. That sounds like a great concept, but the problem comes when you look at the reality of scenarios #1, #2, and #3 above. I don't want Network Neutrality to come at the expense of making one or more of these scenarios impossible. We don't want to say you can never do #3 just so everything is fair. However the costs of these three scenarios are neither the same intotal, nor are they divided the same. If my speculation is right here what various business folks have gone and done in the Comcast/Level 3 situation is to replumb a scenario #3 setup into a scenario #1 setup, effectively rolling the clock back to a previous time. This will cost everyone more money, as more bits move further. Strangely, in may in fact be more fair in that both sides pay more similar costs, but they are in fact, higher costs. In essence Comcast/LimelightAkamai had figured out how to do this for a $1 cost to Comcast and a $1 cost to Akamai, and now Level 3 is doing it in a way that costs them $2 and Comcast $2. Level 3 says it is fair because they pay the same cost, Comcast says it is not because their costs are raised. Comcast offers Level 3 the $1 solution, but it's not L3's business model so it would cost them $3 to go set that up, and they think that is unfair. This situation thus finally allows me to articulate something that has been rambling around in my head for years, but only now makes sense. The only way you can create a network neutrality model that is fair to all players is to regulate the market into a single scenario. If you picked any one of the above and forced everyone into it, then you could also enforce that anyone could play for the same price. However, as long as we allow the different scenarios it can never be fair, someone in scenario #1 will always have different costs than in scenario #2 or #3. It's a sort of separate but equal that never turns out to be equal. The funny thing about peering to me has always been that everyone keeps their dealings as secret as possible. They don't want to disclose costs, interconnect locations, speeds or other details. Everyone wants to believe they are getting a better deal than the next guy due to their amazing negotiations, and they don't want to give up that advantage. The reality is though that all parties are using the secrecy of these dealings to hide the myriad of ways they screw each other and their competitors because they don't know there are better
Re: Ratios peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote: Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the content providers also turn off SACK, and force ACKs for each packet, they can achieve nearly the perfect traffic ratios the eyeball networks seem to desire. Small packet one way, equivalent small packet the other way, and everyone is happy. Obviously those recent infidels pushing for the so-called Jumbo Frames here on NANOG were nothing more than shills for the eyeball networks, seeking to get more and more networks out of ratio, in an effort to get them to cough up money. Fie on them, I say--instead of JumboFrames, we need MicroFrames! Exchange points should start enforcing a maximum frame size of 64 bytes, to truly bring the internet into perfectly-balanced ratio-ness. I was actually pondering that it may be worth it for some content delivery networks to pay Apple and Microsoft to implement a TCP option such that, when requested by the server, all ACKs get padded to 1500 bytes. :) -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpCJtb9tv4ha.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
Great detective work and it feels very probable that you are largely correct. The pieces together quite nicely. Love the L3 LG part. I dont think they were out to get Comcast specifically but the whole internet, L3 is a large global player and sell lots of transit bits. More bits to sell and peering agreement ratios that is affected by a move like this. If large parts of the internet pays to get to your network why not get more of the internet to give to them? makes perfect sense. /Christian Karlsson Teknikmejeriet Sweden On 2010-11-30 19:02, Leo Bicknell wrote: Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes. In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what. I'd never really paid attention to how Netflix delivers its content. It's obviously a lot of bandwidth, and likely part of the issue here so I thought I would investigate. Apparently Akamai has been the primary Netflix streaming source since March. LimeLight Networks has been a secondary provider, and it would appear those two make up the vast majority of Netflix's actual streaming traffic. I can't tell if Netflix does any streaming out of their own ASN, but if they do it appears to be minor. Here's a reference from the business side of things: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/11/netflix-takes-streaming-to-a-new-level.aspx This is also part of the reason I went back to the very first message in this thread to reply: In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:28:18PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore 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 works for Akamai, it seems likely he might know more about what is going on. Likely he can't discuss the details, but wanted to seed a discussion. I'd say that worked well. I happen to be a Comcast cable modem customer. Gooling for people who had issues getting to Netflix streaming turned up plenty of forum posts with traceroutes to Netflix servers on Akamai and Limelight. I did traceroutes to about 20 of them from my cable modem, and it's clear Comcast and Akamai and Comcast and Limelight are interconnected quite well. Akamai does not sell IP Transit, and I'm thinking it is extremely unlikely that Comcast is buying transit from Limelight. I will thus conclude that these are either peering relationships, or that they have cut some sort of special CDN Interconnect deal with Comcast. But what about Level 3? One of my friends I was chatting with on AIM said they thought Comcast was a Level 3 customer, at least at one time. Google to the rescue again. Level 3 provides fiber to Comcast (20 year deal in 2004): http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/level-3-and-comcast.asp Level 3 provides voice services/support to Comcast: http://cable.tmcnet.com/news/2005/jul/1168088.htm Perhaps the most interesting though is looking up an IP on Comcast's local network here in my city in L3's looking glass: http://lg.level3.net/bgp/bgp.cgi?site=sjo1target=68.86.240.141 Slightly reformatting for your viewing pleasure, along with my comments: Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer # Level 3 thinks they are a customer United_States San_Jose EU_Suppress_to_Peers Suppress_to_AS174 # Cogent Suppress_to_AS1239# Sprint Suppress_to_AS1280# ISC Suppress_to_AS1299# Telia Suppress_to_AS1668# AOL Suppress_to_AS2828# XO Suppress_to_AS2914# NTT Suppress_to_AS3257# TiNet Suppress_to_AS3320# DTAG Suppress_to_AS3549# GBLX Suppress_to_AS3561# Savvis Suppress_to_AS3786# LG DACOM Suppress_to_AS4637# Reach Suppress_to_AS5511# OpenTransit Suppress_to_AS6453# Tata Suppress_to_AS6461# AboveNet Suppress_to_AS6762# Seabone Suppress_to_AS7018# ATT Suppress_to_AS7132# ATT (ex SBC) So it would appear Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3 (along with buying a lot of other services from them). I'm going to speculate that the list of supressed ASN's are peers of both Level 3 and Comcast, and Comcast is going that so those peers can't send some traffic through Level 3 in attempt to game the ratios on their direct connections to Comcast. Now a more interesting picture emerges. Let me emphasize that this is AN EDUCATED
Fwd: Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010
96 days left Martin? Don't think we'll make it past January? --bill Begin forwarded message: From: Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org Date: November 30, 2010 12:27:11 PST To: Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org Subject: [janog:10168] Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010 Reply-To: ja...@janog.gr.jp Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of four /8 IPv4 blocks to ARIN and RIPE NCC in November 2010: 5/8, 23/8, 37/8 and 100/8. 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 5/8 14/8 23/8 27/8 31/8 36/8 37/8 42/8 49/8 50/8 100/8 101/8 105/8 107/8 176/8 177/8 181/8 223/8 Please update your filters as appropriate. The IANA free pool contains 7 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
GigaOm has begin tracking this story: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/30/a-play-by-play-on-the-comcast-and-level-3-spat On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes. In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what. I'd never really paid attention to how Netflix delivers its content. It's obviously a lot of bandwidth, and likely part of the issue here so I thought I would investigate. Apparently Akamai has been the primary Netflix streaming source since March. LimeLight Networks has been a secondary provider, and it would appear those two make up the vast majority of Netflix's actual streaming traffic. I can't tell if Netflix does any streaming out of their own ASN, but if they do it appears to be minor. Here's a reference from the business side of things: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/11/netflix-takes-streaming-to-a-new-level.aspx This is also part of the reason I went back to the very first message in this thread to reply: In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:28:18PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore 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 works for Akamai, it seems likely he might know more about what is going on. Likely he can't discuss the details, but wanted to seed a discussion. I'd say that worked well. I happen to be a Comcast cable modem customer. Gooling for people who had issues getting to Netflix streaming turned up plenty of forum posts with traceroutes to Netflix servers on Akamai and Limelight. I did traceroutes to about 20 of them from my cable modem, and it's clear Comcast and Akamai and Comcast and Limelight are interconnected quite well. Akamai does not sell IP Transit, and I'm thinking it is extremely unlikely that Comcast is buying transit from Limelight. I will thus conclude that these are either peering relationships, or that they have cut some sort of special CDN Interconnect deal with Comcast. But what about Level 3? One of my friends I was chatting with on AIM said they thought Comcast was a Level 3 customer, at least at one time. Google to the rescue again. Level 3 provides fiber to Comcast (20 year deal in 2004): http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/level-3-and-comcast.asp Level 3 provides voice services/support to Comcast: http://cable.tmcnet.com/news/2005/jul/1168088.htm Perhaps the most interesting though is looking up an IP on Comcast's local network here in my city in L3's looking glass: http://lg.level3.net/bgp/bgp.cgi?site=sjo1target=68.86.240.141 Slightly reformatting for your viewing pleasure, along with my comments: Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer # Level 3 thinks they are a customer United_States San_Jose EU_Suppress_to_Peers Suppress_to_AS174 # Cogent Suppress_to_AS1239 # Sprint Suppress_to_AS1280 # ISC Suppress_to_AS1299 # Telia Suppress_to_AS1668 # AOL Suppress_to_AS2828 # XO Suppress_to_AS2914 # NTT Suppress_to_AS3257 # TiNet Suppress_to_AS3320 # DTAG Suppress_to_AS3549 # GBLX Suppress_to_AS3561 # Savvis Suppress_to_AS3786 # LG DACOM Suppress_to_AS4637 # Reach Suppress_to_AS5511 # OpenTransit Suppress_to_AS6453 # Tata Suppress_to_AS6461 # AboveNet Suppress_to_AS6762 # Seabone Suppress_to_AS7018 # ATT Suppress_to_AS7132 # ATT (ex SBC) So it would appear Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3 (along with buying a lot of other services from them). I'm going to speculate that the list of supressed ASN's are peers of both Level 3 and Comcast, and Comcast is going that so those peers can't send some traffic through Level 3 in attempt to game the ratios on their direct connections to Comcast. Now a more interesting picture emerges. Let me emphasize that this is AN EDUCATED GUESS on my part, and I can't prove any of it. Level 3 starts talking to Netflix, and offers them a sweetheart deal to move traffic from Akamai to Level 3. Part of the reason they are willing to go so low on the price to Netflix is they will get to double dip by charging Netflix for the bits and charging Comcast for the bits, since Comcast is a customer!
Re: wikileaks unreachable
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:18:18PM -0500, Andrew Kirch said: Lets be clear here, I'm not encouraging DDoS, I'm enjoying the possibility that someone will hopefully put a jacketed hollowpoint in Assange. Not to promote equine defibrilation, but just so you all feel better - http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/28/1947638/no-evidence-that-wikileaks-releases.html summary: no one got hurt, and wikileaks lets the newspapers do the hard work of redacting info that'd hurt individuals directly. There has been no loss of lives. But s/lives/political careers/ is a different matter, and might catalyse hyperbole that some are buying into. OBONTOPIC: wikileaks has another DDOS going (real DDOS not plain DOS, apparently.) /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: TWT - Comcast congestion
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As far as I can see, Comcast is congested, at least at Equinix in San Jose. Since this is all over private connections (at least in our case), the fabric is not an issue. Maybe they will be using the money from Level(3) to increase capacity on the peerings with the transit providers. (Or maybe not.) I don't know about their connection to TWT, but Comcast has definitely been running their transits congested. The most obvious one from recent months is Tata, which appears to be massively congested for upwards of 12 hours a day in some locations. Comcast has been forcing traffic from large networks who refuse to peer with them (e.g. Abovenet, NTT, Telia, XO, etc) to route via their congested Tata transit for a few months now, their Level3 transit is actually one of the last uncongested providers that they have. The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute, when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers of any kind. Comcast is a FULL TRANSIT CUSTOMER of Level3, not even a paid peer. This is no different than a Comcast customer refusing to pay their cable modem bill because Comcast sent them too much traffic (i.e. the traffic that they requested), and then demanding that Comcast pay them instead. Comcast is essentially abusing it's (in many cases captive) customers to extort other networks into paying them if they want uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks. If there is any doubt about any of this, you can pop on over to lg.level3.net and look at the BGP communities Comcast is tagging on their Level3 transit service, preventing the routes from being exported to certain peers. For example, to my home cable modem: Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Chicago2 EU_Suppress_to_Peers Suppress_to_AS174 Suppress_to_AS1239 Suppress_to_AS1280 Suppress_to_AS1299 Suppress_to_AS1668 Suppress_to_AS2828 Suppress_to_AS2914 Suppress_to_AS3257 Suppress_to_AS3320 Suppress_to_AS3549 Suppress_to_AS3561 Suppress_to_AS3786 Suppress_to_AS4637 Suppress_to_AS5511 Suppress_to_AS6453 Suppress_to_AS6461 Suppress_to_AS6762 Suppress_to_AS7018 Suppress_to_AS7132 -- 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: TWT - Comcast congestion
I would have said OK, and then we'll go ahead and renew your contract with us at current price + $X/Mbps. Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As far as I can see, Comcast is congested, at least at Equinix in San Jose. Since this is all over private connections (at least in our case), the fabric is not an issue. Maybe they will be using the money from Level(3) to increase capacity on the peerings with the transit providers. (Or maybe not.) I don't know about their connection to TWT, but Comcast has definitely been running their transits congested. The most obvious one from recent months is Tata, which appears to be massively congested for upwards of 12 hours a day in some locations. Comcast has been forcing traffic from large networks who refuse to peer with them (e.g. Abovenet, NTT, Telia, XO, etc) to route via their congested Tata transit for a few months now, their Level3 transit is actually one of the last uncongested providers that they have. The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute, when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers of any kind. Comcast is a FULL TRANSIT CUSTOMER of Level3, not even a paid peer. This is no different than a Comcast customer refusing to pay their cable modem bill because Comcast sent them too much traffic (i.e. the traffic that they requested), and then demanding that Comcast pay them instead. Comcast is essentially abusing it's (in many cases captive) customers to extort other networks into paying them if they want uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks. If there is any doubt about any of this, you can pop on over to lg.level3.net and look at the BGP communities Comcast is tagging on their Level3 transit service, preventing the routes from being exported to certain peers. For example, to my home cable modem: Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Chicago2 EU_Suppress_to_Peers Suppress_to_AS174 Suppress_to_AS1239 Suppress_to_AS1280 Suppress_to_AS1299 Suppress_to_AS1668 Suppress_to_AS2828 Suppress_to_AS2914 Suppress_to_AS3257 Suppress_to_AS3320 Suppress_to_AS3549 Suppress_to_AS3561 Suppress_to_AS3786 Suppress_to_AS4637 Suppress_to_AS5511 Suppress_to_AS6453 Suppress_to_AS6461 Suppress_to_AS6762 Suppress_to_AS7018 Suppress_to_AS7132 -- 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) -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:12:23PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute, when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers of any kind. Comcast is a FULL TRANSIT CUSTOMER of Level3, not even a paid peer. This is no different than a Comcast customer refusing to pay their cable modem bill because Comcast sent them too much traffic (i.e. the traffic that they requested), and then demanding that Comcast pay them instead. Comcast is essentially abusing it's (in many cases captive) customers to extort other networks into paying them if they want uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks. Actually it appears to be Level 3 who fired the first PR salvo running to the FCC, if the date stamps on the statements are right. So it's really Level 3 framing as a net neutrality peering issue the fact that Comcast balked at paying them more. Netflix is today apparently delivered via Akamai, who has nodes deep inside Comcast. Maybe Akamai pays Comcast, I actually don't think that is the case from an IP transit point of view, but I think they do pay for space and power in Comcast data centers near end users. But anyway, this Netflix data is close to the user, and going over a settlement free, or customer connection. Level 3 appears to have sucked Netflix away, and wants to double dip charging Netflix for the transit, and Comcast for the transit. Worse, they get to triple dip, since they are Comcast's main fiber provider. Comcast will have to buy more fiber to haul the bits from the Equinix handoffs to the local markets where Akamai used to dump it off. Worse still, Level 3 told them mid-novemeber that the traffic would be there in december. Perhaps 45 days to provision backbone and peering to handle this, during the holiday silly season. Perhaps Level 3 wanted to quadruple dip with the expedite fees. Yet with all of this Level 3 runs to the FCC screaming net neutrality. Wow. That takes balls. Comcast did itself no favors respnding with it's a ratio issue rather than laying out the situation. What I wonder is why Netflix and Comcast are letting middle men like Level 3 and Akamai jerk both of them around. These two folks need to get together and deal with each other, cutting out the middle man -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgp96WcYMiQLJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, bill manning bmann...@isi.edu wrote: 96 days left Martin? Don't think we'll make it past January? --bill I doubt whether or not there are more than 60 days left for the IANA pool. The number of addresses that remain for normal allocation happens to be identical to the approximate allocation size of a RIR request. Surely APNIC will request 2 more /8s before March, 2011, particularly if IP address demands continue to be heightened, APNIC's remaining pool can drop below their threshold in December. If they get 2 /8s, then , only 5 remain, the final set of /8s where one is reserved for each RIR. I wonder if the makers that VPN software program making unofficial use of 5.0.0.0/8 will go fix their software now. 5/8 might never be allocated, because they are reserved, and 'we can always go pick another reserved /8' are no longer excuses by any stretch of the imagination. -- -JH
Re: Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010
logmein/hamachi Actually pretty useful for those who can't (won't) purchase gear to do it. I use it.. Warren Bailey | RF Engineer General Communication, Inc. 2550 Denali St. Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99503 907.868.5911 desk 907.903.5410 mobile 907.947.7616 followme http://www.gci.com On 11/30/10 5:59 PM, James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, bill manning bmann...@isi.edu wrote: 96 days left Martin? Don't think we'll make it past January? --bill I doubt whether or not there are more than 60 days left for the IANA pool. The number of addresses that remain for normal allocation happens to be identical to the approximate allocation size of a RIR request. Surely APNIC will request 2 more /8s before March, 2011, particularly if IP address demands continue to be heightened, APNIC's remaining pool can drop below their threshold in December. If they get 2 /8s, then , only 5 remain, the final set of /8s where one is reserved for each RIR. I wonder if the makers that VPN software program making unofficial use of 5.0.0.0/8 will go fix their software now. 5/8 might never be allocated, because they are reserved, and 'we can always go pick another reserved /8' are no longer excuses by any stretch of the imagination. -- -JH
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:45:57PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: Actually it appears to be Level 3 who fired the first PR salvo running to the FCC, if the date stamps on the statements are right. So it's really Level 3 framing as a net neutrality peering issue the fact that Comcast balked at paying them more. I never said otherwise. The PR is pretty clear: Level 3 says that Comcast, their TRANSIT CUSTOMER, demanded that Level 3 pay them because of a ratio imbalance. Level 3, not wanting to cause massive disruptions to their other customers who would then no longer be able to reach Comcast (or depending on your point of view, because of an extreme lack of testicular fortitude), complied, and then put out a PR whining about it. In some ways it IS a net neutrality issue. Comcast is effectively too big to turn off, and has used the threat of disruption to it's massive customer base to bully a transit provider into paying its customer for the right to deliver service. Comcast has made it quite clear that their goal is to charge content companies for access to their customers, which if I'm not mistaken is what the whole net neutrality thing (at least originally) was all about. :) Netflix is today apparently delivered via Akamai, who has nodes deep inside Comcast. Maybe Akamai pays Comcast, I actually don't think that is the case from an IP transit point of view, but I think they do pay for space and power in Comcast data centers near end users. But anyway, this Netflix data is close to the user, and going over a settlement free, or customer connection. Netflix is today delivered by LimeLight and Akamai, who are both very clearly and publicly acknowledged customers of Comcast (though the LLNW deal is VERY fresh), as well as by Level 3 CDN. Level 3 CDN recently (and very publicly) won a lot of Netflix's business, but they're by no means new customers. Level 3 appears to have sucked Netflix away, and wants to double dip charging Netflix for the transit, and Comcast for the transit. Worse, Absolutely they wanted to double dip. If you've seen the prices that Level 3 is selling it's CDN services for, you'd know they'll need to quadruple dip just to break even. :) Comcast wants to double dip too. They're not satisfied with receiving the traffic via a peer for free, they want to be paid on both sides. So yes you effectively have a battle of two companies who want to double dip. The major difference is that Level 3 accomplished its double dip by providing quality service at a reasonable price in an environment with a significant amount of competition, while Comcast accomplished its double dip by hosting its (mostly captive) customer base hostage, and intentionally creating congestion via every alternate path. If Comcast was winning customers by offering better, cheaper, faster service, they would have a leg to stand on, but the reality is the only thing they're offering is access to their captive eyeball customers. The funny part is that Level 3 was clearly ill prepared for the PR war, whereas Comcast, being the first mover (if not the first PR issuer), was well prepared. they get to triple dip, since they are Comcast's main fiber provider. Comcast will have to buy more fiber to haul the bits from the Equinix handoffs to the local markets where Akamai used to dump it off. Worse still, Level 3 told them mid-novemeber that the traffic would be there in december. Perhaps 45 days to provision backbone and peering to handle this, during the holiday silly season. Perhaps Level 3 wanted to quadruple dip with the expedite fees. I think you're making a lot of assumptions which have no basis in fact above, unless you know something I don't, which based on what I've read so far I don't think you do. Again, there is no peering, Comcast is a Level 3 transit customer. Until a month ago a lot of this content was being delivered by LLNW via Global Crossing, until Comcast threatened LLNW with intentional congestion of it GX paid peers, and forced them to buy directly to keep Netflix happy. This is far from the first time this issue has come up, and Comcast has established a very clear pattern of trying everything in its power to force content companies to pay for uncongested access. Yet with all of this Level 3 runs to the FCC screaming net neutrality. Wow. That takes balls. Comcast did itself no favors respnding with it's a ratio issue rather than laying out the situation. If you refused to pay your transit provider, they'd probably just shut you off. The problem is that Comcast is too big to just shut off, and would no doubt tell it's customers that Level 3 did it (just like they have every other time someone has complained about their congested transits), that's why they're whining. What I wonder is why Netflix and Comcast are letting middle men like Level 3 and Akamai jerk both of them around. These two folks need to get
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
While its pile on Comcast night, I'll add that that the Comcast peers with Cablevision Lightpath are also a mess in New York, Ashburn and Chicago right now. Have been for at least the last hour or two. According to Cablevision we were not the first to report it and the feedback I have from them is that this is an ongoing issue with Comcast over the last week or so. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: 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: TWT - Comcast congestion
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:24:47PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I never said otherwise. The PR is pretty clear: Level 3 says that Comcast, their TRANSIT CUSTOMER, demanded that Level 3 pay them because of a ratio imbalance. Level 3, not wanting to cause massive disruptions to their other customers who would then no longer be able to reach Comcast (or depending on your point of view, because of an extreme lack of testicular fortitude), complied, and then put out a PR whining about it. I'm not privy to the deal, but I will point out as reported it makes no sense, so there is something else going on here. This is where both sids are hiding the real truth. I suspect it's one of two scenarios: - Comcast demanded a lower price from Level 3, which Level 3 has spun as paying Comcast a monthly fee. - Comcast said they would do settlment free peering with Level 3, in addition to, or in place of transit. Level 3 is spinning the cost of turning this up as paying Comcast a fee. I suspect we'll not know what terms were offered for many years. In some ways it IS a net neutrality issue. Comcast is effectively too big to turn off, and has used the threat of disruption to it's massive customer base to bully a transit provider into paying its customer for the right to deliver service. Comcast has made it quite clear that their goal is to charge content companies for access to their customers, which if I'm not mistaken is what the whole net neutrality thing (at least originally) was all about. :) Yes and no. First off, network neutrality is a vaguely defined term, so I'm not going to use it. Rather I'm going to say I think many people agree there is a concept that when it comes to traffic between providers there should be roughly similar terms for all players. Comcast shouldn't give Netflix a sweetheart deal while making Youtube pay through the nose. The problem is that many of the folks want to conflate the ability to be treated equal, with the ability to do whatever they want. For instance, consider these equivilent interconnect models: 1 GE in 100 cities. 10 GE in 10 cities. 100 GE in 1 city. All of these could support a 70G traffic flow between networks, but the costs to provision all three in ports, backbone, and mangement are wildly different. If two networks have 70G of traffic does network neutrailty mean one can demand 1GE in 100 cities, and the other can get a single 100GE in 1 city and the person on the other end has to deal with both like it or not? The funny part is that Level 3 was clearly ill prepared for the PR war, whereas Comcast, being the first mover (if not the first PR issuer), was well prepared. Really? I just checked google news again, and the first statement I can find by either side was a Level 3 submission to business wire: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp If you can find a Comcast story before that I'd love to read it. What I wonder is why Netflix and Comcast are letting middle men like Level 3 and Akamai jerk both of them around. These two folks need to get together and deal with each other, cutting out the middle man Netflix is a Comcast customer too (again well established publicly and easily provable via the global routing table), but they don't run their own server infrastructure, and Comcast doesn't offer a CDN service... Right, Netflix is a Comcast customer for www.netfix.com, e.g. the web site where you select movies. No streaming comes from that source as far as I can tell, so it's really a sort of red herring in this discussion. I realize Netflix is chosing to outsource their streaming, but there's no reason they can't outsouce the running of the servers while controlling a direct IP relationship with Comcast, if they don't want to run the servers in house. The reality is that Level 3 offered Netflix a cut-throat price on CDN service to steal the business from Akamai, probably only made possible by the double dipping mentioned above. They were already in for a world of hurt based on their CDN infrastructure investment and the revenue they were able to extract from it, this certainly isn't going to help things. :) I feel you undercut your network neutrality argument right here, because you make an argument that this is just two competitive businesses trying to get a leg up on each other. You can't have the fairness part of network neutrality and try and stab each other in the back at every step. To be clear, I don't think either Level 3 or Comcast is in the right here, or well, really in the wrong. It's easy to make both arguments: Level 3: They have been our customer for a long time, and now want a lower price, or a fee, or to convert to peering just because we added a customer, how is that fair? Comcast: These guys cut a deal to move 10's of
Re: [NANOG-announce] Reminder: Today is the last day to register for NANOG 51 at the early bird rate
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, David Meyer wrote: Register today to get the early bird rate. Looking forward to seeing you in Miami. I just tried (to take advantage of the early-bird rate) and it looks like the registration code is busted. Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, w...@merit.edu and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. [17270]ERR: 32: Warning in Perl code: DBD::Oracle::db do failed: ORA-1: unique constraint (NANOG.SYS_C00319811) violated (DBD ERROR: OCIStmtExecute) [for Statement insert into attendee ( attendee_id, attendee_username, attendee_password, attendee_email ) values ( attendee_seq.nextval, ?, ?, ? ) ] at /afs/merit.net/infotech/www/nanog/secdocs/registration/username.epl line 54. [17270]ERR: 24: Error in Perl code: DBD::Oracle::db do failed: ORA-1: unique constraint (NANOG.SYS_C00319811) violated (DBD ERROR: OCIStmtExecute) [for Statement insert into attendee ( attendee_id, attendee_username, attendee_password, attendee_email ) values ( attendee_seq.nextval, ?, ?, ? ) ] at /afs/merit.net/infotech/www/nanog/secdocs/registration/username.epl line 54. Apache/2.2.14 (Unix) Embperl/2.3.0 mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 [Tue Nov 30 22:51:44 2010] I tried several variations of username and email address just in case either was already in the database from when I last attended a NANOG in Miami. It made no difference. Can we extend the early-bird rate until the web site is fixed such that people can actually create a username in order to sign up? -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Andrew Koch wrote: 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. And I am on Sprint because they are one of the few. 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. I simply avoid using roaming services. Frankly, my carrier could double their revenue from me and significantly increase their profits if they would offer me a global unlimited data/voice plan for twice what I currently pay for domestic. (If any of you cellular companies are listening, that's right, I'd be willing to pay ~$250/month for global unlimited voice/data and my usage would not increase very much above what you're already providing). I also happen to know that I'm not the only consumer that would very much like to be able to purchase this kind of service. An alternative to N number of SIM cards or paying high roaming fees is WiFi calling from cellular using UMA or GAN technologies. I used the T-Mobile USA Blackberry Curve to call Philly from a free WiFi access point at a Shanghai coffee shop, worked fine. Skype probably works too. Yes, it only works while on WiFi, but when you are attached via wifi it is like being attached via the home network from a billing perspective. While on WiFi, voice, txt, and web all work. For me, it is a reasonable compromise when compared to roaming fees. Shameless plug http://tinyurl.com/2vqzcrv And, for the IPv6 enthusiast, the Nokia E73 does both GAN (wifi calling) and IPv6 on T-Mobile's 3G network (but not together... beta...) Cameron (not an unbiased source of information on america's largest 4G network) Owen
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:53:25PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: I'm not privy to the deal, but I will point out as reported it makes no sense, so there is something else going on here. This is where both sids are hiding the real truth. I suspect it's one of two scenarios: - Comcast demanded a lower price from Level 3, which Level 3 has spun as paying Comcast a monthly fee. - Comcast said they would do settlment free peering with Level 3, in addition to, or in place of transit. Level 3 is spinning the cost of turning this up as paying Comcast a fee. I suspect we'll not know what terms were offered for many years. While obviously nobody is going to come out and officially acknowledge the exact terms on the NANOG mailing list, I'd say this is far too massive a leap of logic to make any kind of sense. Both Level 3 and Comcast seem to acknowledge that Comcast is asking for Level 3 to pay, is it really so hard to believe that this is the case? :) Yes and no. First off, network neutrality is a vaguely defined term, so I'm not going to use it. Rather I'm going to say I think many people agree there is a concept that when it comes to traffic between providers there should be roughly similar terms for all players. Comcast shouldn't give Netflix a sweetheart deal while making Youtube pay through the nose. Why shouldn't they? Charging different people different rates based on their willingness to pay is perfectly legal last I looked, and goes on in every industry. Personally I thought net neutrality was about not charging Netflix a special fee or else risk having their services degraded (in the same way that the mob makes sure nothing bad happens to your store :P), so they don't compete with an internal VOD service which doesn't get such fees applied. But obviously net neutrality is like tier 1, you can apply any definition you'd like. :) The funny part is that Level 3 was clearly ill prepared for the PR war, whereas Comcast, being the first mover (if not the first PR issuer), was well prepared. Really? I just checked google news again, and the first statement I can find by either side was a Level 3 submission to business wire: I believe that's what I said. To be perfectly clear, what I'm saying is: * Comcast acted first by demanding fees * Level 3 went public first by whining about it after they agreed to pay * Comcast was well prepared to win the PR war, and had a large pile of content that sounds good to the uninformed layperson ready to go. The reality is that Level 3 offered Netflix a cut-throat price on CDN service to steal the business from Akamai, probably only made possible by the double dipping mentioned above. They were already in for a world of hurt based on their CDN infrastructure investment and the revenue they were able to extract from it, this certainly isn't going to help things. :) I feel you undercut your network neutrality argument right here, because you make an argument that this is just two competitive businesses trying to get a leg up on each other. You can't have the fairness part of network neutrality and try and stab each other in the back at every step. The net neutrality part comes from the fact that Level 3 can't just turn Comcast off for non-payment without risking massive impact to their customers. I'm pretty sure Level 3 is still allowed to charge people for transit services. If Comcast didn't want to buy from Level 3 they could have easily gone elsewhere, the part where the gov't steps in is when someone is abusing a monopoly/duopoly position. Neither Level 3 nor Comcast here are interested in the fairness of network neutraility, or even interested in helping their customers. They are interested in hurting their competitors and boosting their own bottom line. Probably true, but I'm sure someone somewhere (i.e. the consumers who have little to no choice in their home broadband) cares about the fairness just a little. I bet the cash spent on lawyers and lobbiests taking this to the FCC on both sides could pay for enough backbone bandwidth and router ports to make this problem go away on both sides many times over. If they really cared about the customers experience and good network performance they would put away the press release swords, the various VP and CxO's egos, and come up with a solution. Do you really think Comcast cares about the $50k router ports (by their own accounts, though personally I'd suggest they get off the CRS-1 tippe if they actually wanted to save some money :P), or might they actually be more interested in establishing themselves as a new Tier 1? :) At the end of the day both companies have made their share of mistakes, but I have a lot more respect for the ones who compete fairly and honestly, rather than by forcing people to use their services or else. -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
Level3 issues from Denver to San Jose?
I'm seeing packetloss starting at ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net(4.69.132.37) destined down to San Jose (4.69.132.57). 10. ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net 1.5% 11. ae-3-3.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.6% 12. ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% 13. ae-4-99.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% Is anyone else seeing the same thing? I know its not much, but at times it spikes up, this was just part of a small snapshot taken. ~Jared
Re: TWT - Comcast congestion
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I don't know about their connection to TWT, but Comcast has definitely been running their transits congested. The most obvious one from recent months is Tata, which appears to be massively congested for upwards of 12 hours a day in some locations. Comcast has been forcing traffic from large networks who refuse to peer with them (e.g. Abovenet, NTT, Telia, XO, etc) to route via their congested Tata transit for a few months now, their Level3 transit is actually one of the last uncongested providers that they have. Actually AboveNet seems to peer with Comcast: 5. xe-1-1-0.er2.iad10.above.net 0.0%535.8 6.4 5.7 31.9 3.7 6. above-comcast.iad10.us.above.net 0.0%536.4 6.4 6.1 6.7 0.1 7. pos-3-12-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net0.0% 536.3 6.4 6.2 6.6 0.1 But Cablevision in New York is in fact another example of this problem: 4. dstswr1-ge3-12.rh.nyk4ny.cv.net 0.0%78 17.8 41.2 15.0 242.9 33.5 5. 64.15.5.142 0.0%78 44.6 42.9 23.9 82.5 9.0 6. ??? 7. ??? 8. pos-3-12-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net 2.6% 78 267.2 500.6 44.6 703.6 182.9 9. 68.86.91.166 2.6%78 273.9 500.0 46.5 701.9 183.9 Peter Nowak
Re: Level3 issues from Denver to San Jose?
I'm seeing some packet loss out of one of my routers in San Diego, we peer with L3. ping 4.69.132.57 so gi3/8 repeat 1000 size 5000 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 1000, 5000-byte ICMP Echos to 4.69.132.57, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of x.y.d.z !.!!.!.!!. !.!!.!.!!.!!.! .!!.!.!!.!.!!! !!!.!.!!.!.!!. !.!!.!.!!!.!!! !!.!!.!.!!.!.! !.!.!!.!!.!.!! .!.!!.!!.!.!!! !!!.! Success rate is 93 percent (534/573), round-trip min/avg/max = 20/27/204 ms On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Jared Geiger ja...@compuwizz.net wrote: I'm seeing packetloss starting at ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net(4.69.132.37) destined down to San Jose (4.69.132.57). 10. ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net 1.5% 11. ae-3-3.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.6% 12. ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% 13. ae-4-99.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% Is anyone else seeing the same thing? I know its not much, but at times it spikes up, this was just part of a small snapshot taken. ~Jared
