Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Michael Rathbun]

On 31 Mar 2012 08:55:48 +0200, "John R. Levine"  wrote:


>Spam sucks, but I've been posting to usenet with my real unmunged email 
>address since 1981 and my inbox remains entirely usable.  The idea that 
>the way to avoid spam is to hide from spammers is so 1990s.

So desu, ne.

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[John R. Levine]

It's not pr0n that's killing Usenet, the problem is spam
junk mail, chain letters


I gather you haven't looked at usenet for a long time.  The spam and chain 
letters have followed the crowd.  I can't remember the last time I saw a 
chain letter, and there's surprisingly little spam.



E-mail address harvesters (where you get bombarded with direct-emailed
crap if you dare post a message to USENET).


Spam sucks, but I've been posting to usenet with my real unmunged email 
address since 1981 and my inbox remains entirely usable.  The idea that 
the way to avoid spam is to hide from spammers is so 1990s.


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[JC Dill]

On 30/03/12 7:48 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

E-mail address harvesters (where you get bombarded with direct-emailed
crap if you dare post a message to USENET).


I've been posting with a real gmail address for years, and google does 
an amazing job with filtering out the resulting spam, with very few 
false positives (mostly badly designed marketing email from companies 
I've opted n to receive marketing email from, and whose spam-trapped 
messages are no real loss).


jc

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[JC Dill]

On 30/03/12 2:55 PM, John Levine wrote:

 I thought it should have died when pr0n and
w4rez took it over (in the late 90's)..

Many of the tech groups remain quite healthy.  I still moderate
comp.compilers which gets about 100 posts/month.


I'm on a handful of not-tech discussion groups which are still fairly 
active.  However, one of them is busy dying as most of the discussion 
traffic moved to a Facebook group.  (I'm also on a number of mailing 
lists that are quickly dying as most of their traffic is also moving to 
Facebook groups.)  We had a thread a few weeks ago in one group after an 
ISP announced they were dropping usenet, and customers of that ISP were 
being pointed to aioe and eternal-september.org as alternates (for 
text-only newsgroups).


jc

RE: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[George Bonser]

> How many of you realize that JOPES (Joint Operation Planning and
> Execution System), used by the Pentagon for command and control at the
> Joint Chiefs level, uses classified newsgroups for distributing
> operations plans and orders?
> 
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
> 
> 

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.  The NNTP protocol can be used for lots of 
things and not just public newsgroup discussions.  For a company that has a lot 
of offices distributed around the world there could be many applications for 
it.  It would also be pretty handy for emergency response for major natural 
disasters, too, for asynchronous communications between people, departments, 
etc.  It lends itself easily to the forming of ad hoc teams and there is even 
access control possibilities with various groups of users having access to 
various hierarchies. It is a great tool that can be used for a lot of things 
without having to re-invent the wheel for collaboration, information sharing, 
etc.

There's nothing obsolete about the NNTP protocol.  Usenet might be obsolete, 
but NNTP can be quite useful.

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Henry Yen]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 20:40:06PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
> Just curious, what's the source of this uunet announcement (as in a
> link or cite, not "uunet!")?
> 
> On March 30, 2012 at 16:41 he...@aegisinfosys.com (Henry Yen) wrote:
>  > uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
>  > services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
>  > any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".

it was a written letter to (some or all) transit customers of verizonbusiness.
no, the word "uunet" isn't in there, but that's how i think of them, even
before wcom and mci (and metro fiber).

i was more interested in comments regarding the feed (nntp) side rather
than the reader (lotsa choices, including gated feeds, dejanews/google, etc.).

-- 
Henry YenAegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer   Hicksville, New York
1-800-AEGIS-00 (800-234-4700)

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Joe Greco]

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Joe Greco wrote:
> > Those of us still doing work with USENET know that it isn't dead, far
> > from it, but we're aware that there's a certain amount of illicit
> > traffic.
> 
> A certain amount?  Even years and years ago, when I last ran a server, 
> I'd wager porn and warez was statistically "all" of the traffic.

That clearly explains why glorb.com, a text-only transit site, is
currently rated fifth.

http://top1000.anthologeek.net/

> > It's kind of like the way that pr0n and w4rez dominate all the Internet,
> > but this doesn't seem to faze Internet network operators.
> 
> Perhaps because the pr0n and w4rez are just bits on the wire for most 
> operators, not terabytes of disk space on servers we own.

Oddly enough, I'd think that "bits on the wire" are kind of expensive.
Ports, circuits, etc. and those are on routers you own and circuits you
lease.

I can pick up a 4TB hard drive for $229.  And that's currently an 
inflated price; back in September, 3TB drives were around $100.  With
traffic rates steady around 6TB/day for the past few years, IIRC, it
isn't too fantastically expensive to store two weeks of binaries.
Certainly cheaper than your average Cisco router.

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

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Jimmy Hess]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jon Lewis  wrote:
> Perhaps because the pr0n and w4rez are just bits on the wire for most
> operators, not terabytes of disk space on servers we own.

pr0n, w4rez, and other  large binaries encoded with UUENCODE  are easy
to identify and block.

It's not pr0n that's killing Usenet, the problem is spam
junk mail
chain letters

E-mail address harvesters (where you get bombarded with direct-emailed
crap if you dare post a message to USENET).

And the like.

The advantage 'forum sites' have is,   you don't reveal your e-mail
address to the public when posting.
And automated spam sending can be mitigated through the use of CAPTCHAs.

---
-JH

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Miles Fidelman]

Jon Lewis wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Joe Greco wrote:


Those of us still doing work with USENET know that it isn't dead, far
from it, but we're aware that there's a certain amount of illicit
traffic.


A certain amount?  Even years and years ago, when I last ran a server, 
I'd wager porn and warez was statistically "all" of the traffic.



It's kind of like the way that pr0n and w4rez dominate all the Internet,
but this doesn't seem to faze Internet network operators.


Perhaps because the pr0n and w4rez are just bits on the wire for most 
operators, not terabytes of disk space on servers we own.


Yeah.. but that's like saying video is all there is on the Internet.  I 
don't know about the rest of you, but I exchange a LOT more email every 
day that the number of videos I watch, but... the bandwidth involved in 
all that email pretty trivial, even counting all the list traffic going 
through our list manager.


Miles Fidelman




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Miles Fidelman]

George Bonser wrote:

No comment just a question...  Why did it take so long?

All good things must come to an end.  and for NNTP that end was when
web based Forums software and P2P was invented.  Seriously does anyone
still use UUCP for email?  I thought it should have died when pr0n and
w4rez took it over (in the late 90's)..  but that ended up fueling the
need :)  Who is the Kim Dotcom of usenet?  Lets bust him and move on.

-Scott

I think there is still a place for things like NNTP and UUCP but maybe not as they were 
used in the past.  Private NNTP groups could be used to create discussion boards or even 
a coordination system for emergency response with each jurisdiction having its own group 
hierarchy.  UUCP could be used to move mail and "news" between locations via 
telephone dial if the conventional internet is broken.  UUCP has the advantage of moving 
email for entire domains rather than simply a user.  It could be a good emergency backup 
or used in places where Internet connectivity is spotty/denied but telephone service is 
available.

How many of you realize that JOPES (Joint Operation Planning and 
Execution System), used by the Pentagon for command and control at the 
Joint Chiefs level, uses classified newsgroups for distributing 
operations plans and orders?


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Jeroen van Aart]

Michael Sinatra wrote:

active class newsgroups.  As you can see from examples such as CS 61a (
https://groups.google.com/group/ucb.class.cs61a/about?pli=1),


Can someone help out mrshare?
https://groups.google.com/group/ucb.class.cs61a/browse_frm/month/2010-08

The above link and this one are a fitting illustration of what has 
happened to usenet in the last decade and a half...


"systemy" network engineers out there.  I enjoy running DNS, NTP, and 
other system-based network services an much as I like configuring 
routers.  I think running USENET a while back had a lot to do with that.


For the last 2 decades or so I have repeatedly tried to "get into" 
usenet. But every time I loose interest and give up. I am not entirely 
sure why because it can be a great source of information and to communicate.


It's probably a combination of signal to noise ratio, epic flame wars, 
the user interface of many clients and the actual size (information 
overload ;-).


But I am glad there exists something beyond "the web".

Greetings,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 5.2
Date: Friday, March 30, 2012 19:51:04 UTC
Location: Bougainville region, Papua New Guinea
Latitude: -6.6076; Longitude: 154.5824
Depth: 45.70 km

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Thomas Mangin]

Hi Fredy,

On 30 Mar 2012, at 22:48, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:

> Now, obviously, the French regulator sees the trouble and trys to understand
> and 'regulate' it the way they do it usually. From our perspective certainly
> not a good way, but why blaming the regulator? Blame those which made it all
> happen! Read: the restrictive incumbents which put obstacles in the way of
> everyone else.

I wish the world was so simple .. There is reasons why incumbents do not peer. 
Each time I had the time to seat with one of their peering coordinator, I 
always got a good reason to why they did what they did. I do not always agree 
with all of them but most of the time I could not fail their logic.
I am quite exasperated by the number of networks who believe they have a god 
given right to free peering (and this goes from small content with no backbone 
cost but lots of traffic to network which are seen as T1), perhaps Peering 
sould be called it "limited cross-transit contract with equal billing on each 
side " (ie: it is not free the invoice just contra themselves), even if it is a 
mouthful, it may better explain why it is not a right.

And I agree with Raphael that once the asset are listed, it is sooo tempting to 
TAX the very profitable Internet industry. I am already hearing the **AA asking 
for an income per Mb of transfer to compensate for the piracy the ISP are sooo 
clearly accomplice of ( Time to add bandwidth to the list on 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy ).

Peering is an "abnormality" which regulators will have much need of help to 
understand and not destroy. As the thread names him, time to employ so more 
lobbyist to help Malcolm making sure they are kept at bay.

Thomas



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Barry Shein]

Just curious, what's the source of this uunet announcement (as in a
link or cite, not "uunet!")?

On March 30, 2012 at 16:41 he...@aegisinfosys.com (Henry Yen) wrote:
 > uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
 > services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
 > any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".
 > 
 > does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?
 > 
 > -- 
 > Henry YenAegis Information Systems, 
 > Inc.
 > Senior Systems Programmer   Hicksville, New York
 > 1-800-AEGIS-00 (800-234-4700)
 > 

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: airFiber

[Rodrick Brown]

H. 
 Hy

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 29, 2012, at 2:01 PM, "Nick Olsen"  wrote:

> It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 
> ghz gear can. It's 24ghz.
> 
> They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert.
> 
> In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going 
> to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this 
> would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were 
> talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between 
> them.
> 
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106
> 
> 
> From: "Drew Weaver" 
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl" 
> Subject: RE: airFiber
> 
> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes 
> tricky.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Drew
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
> To: Eugen Leitl
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: airFiber
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> 
>> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
>> 
>> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
> 
> Yeah, I got this note the other day.  I am very interested in hearing about 
> folks experience with this hardware once it ships.
> 
> I almost posted it in the last-mile thread.  Even compared to other 
> hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is 
> amazing.
> 
> I also recommend watching the video they posted:
> 
> http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html
> 
> You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to 
> have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each 
> end.
> 
> - Jared
> 
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
> clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only 
> mine.
> 
> 

RE: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Mark Gauvin]

that statement posted a few days ago saying that the former Motorola Canopy 
team designed this product turned me off right away

From: Greg Ihnen [os10ru...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:36 PM
To: Dylan Bouterse
Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

On Mar 30, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:

> A couple of thoughts. First, it's not fair to compare 24GHz to 2.4 or even 
> 5Gig range due to the wave length. You will get 2.4GHz bleed through walls, 
> windows, etc. VERY close to a 5GHz transmitter you may get some bleed through 
> walls but not reliably. 24GHz will not propagate through objects as it's 
> millimeter wavelength. That coupled with the fact it is a directional PTP 
> product, you will be able to get a good amount of density of 24GHz PTP links 
> using the same frequency in a small area (downtown for instance).

The comparison isn't on wavelength, it's on the unlicensed-ness of it. Think CB 
vs Ham Radio. Where 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz are congested people have no where to go 
but up. You may not be alone up there. Guys already running 24GHz links might 
look at the sudden availability of cheap 24GHz gear in a different light.

Granted there's many things in AirFiber's favor regarding congestion being less 
of a problem. The short range and high directivity, high cost, etc, but 
remember this isn't the only 24GHz product out there. In the kind of places 
where one of these links might be needed, others might have the same need.

If you're thinking about the implications of possible congestion/interference 
when you're thinking about a link between the main office and the warehouse at 
a plant to give the guys in the warehouse internet that's not mission critical 
that's one thing. If it's key infrastructure for your ISP business then things 
start to look different. The licensed links start looking better regarding 
reliability down the road because you have a protected frequency. For ISPs out 
in farm country this is less of an issue, but in the more urban areas it is a 
concern. You start getting interference to your backhaul and you've got serious 
issues. You possibly have downgraded service or no service at many towers 
involving lots of customers.

>
> Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will also allow for frequency reuse to 
> a point. I would like to see smaller channel sizes though. I hear it will be 
> a software upgrade down the road. I'm shocked the old Canopy guys didn't code 
> that into the first release to be honest.

The GPS/reuse thing is for transmitters that are synced, that is transmitters 
belonging to the same system. Someone else's system won't be synced with yours 
and you won't see that benefit. So if you're thinking that's going to help 
between competitors it won't.

Greg

>
> Dylan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
> To: Oliver Garraux
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>
>>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). 
>>> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're 
>>> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. 
>>> Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few 
>>> urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for 
>>> backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for 
>>> licensed  frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the 
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>
>> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
>> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
>> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
>> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.  I guess
>> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
>> Ghz.  AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
>> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
>> available @ 24 Ghz.
>>
>> It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
>> licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
>>
>> Oliver
>
> I don't think it's an FCC issue so much as 24Ghz has so much fade tendency 
> with atmospheric moisture that an omnidirectional antenna is about as 
> effective as a resistor coupled to ground (i.e. dummy load).
>
> The only way you can get a signal to go any real distance at that frequency 
> is to use a highly directional high-gain antenna at both ends.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>

RE: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[George Bonser]

> No comment just a question...  Why did it take so long?
> 
> All good things must come to an end.  and for NNTP that end was when
> web based Forums software and P2P was invented.  Seriously does anyone
> still use UUCP for email?  I thought it should have died when pr0n and
> w4rez took it over (in the late 90's)..  but that ended up fueling the
> need :)  Who is the Kim Dotcom of usenet?  Lets bust him and move on.
> 
> -Scott

I think there is still a place for things like NNTP and UUCP but maybe not as 
they were used in the past.  Private NNTP groups could be used to create 
discussion boards or even a coordination system for emergency response with 
each jurisdiction having its own group hierarchy.  UUCP could be used to move 
mail and "news" between locations via telephone dial if the conventional 
internet is broken.  UUCP has the advantage of moving email for entire domains 
rather than simply a user.  It could be a good emergency backup or used in 
places where Internet connectivity is spotty/denied but telephone service is 
available.

In fact I once had an idea of using NNTP as the "backend" database for a 
distributed ticketing system though it wouldn't "look" like NNTP from the UI.

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Greg Ihnen]

On Mar 30, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:

> A couple of thoughts. First, it's not fair to compare 24GHz to 2.4 or even 
> 5Gig range due to the wave length. You will get 2.4GHz bleed through walls, 
> windows, etc. VERY close to a 5GHz transmitter you may get some bleed through 
> walls but not reliably. 24GHz will not propagate through objects as it's 
> millimeter wavelength. That coupled with the fact it is a directional PTP 
> product, you will be able to get a good amount of density of 24GHz PTP links 
> using the same frequency in a small area (downtown for instance).

The comparison isn't on wavelength, it's on the unlicensed-ness of it. Think CB 
vs Ham Radio. Where 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz are congested people have no where to go 
but up. You may not be alone up there. Guys already running 24GHz links might 
look at the sudden availability of cheap 24GHz gear in a different light.

Granted there's many things in AirFiber's favor regarding congestion being less 
of a problem. The short range and high directivity, high cost, etc, but 
remember this isn't the only 24GHz product out there. In the kind of places 
where one of these links might be needed, others might have the same need.

If you're thinking about the implications of possible congestion/interference 
when you're thinking about a link between the main office and the warehouse at 
a plant to give the guys in the warehouse internet that's not mission critical 
that's one thing. If it's key infrastructure for your ISP business then things 
start to look different. The licensed links start looking better regarding 
reliability down the road because you have a protected frequency. For ISPs out 
in farm country this is less of an issue, but in the more urban areas it is a 
concern. You start getting interference to your backhaul and you've got serious 
issues. You possibly have downgraded service or no service at many towers 
involving lots of customers.

> 
> Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will also allow for frequency reuse to 
> a point. I would like to see smaller channel sizes though. I hear it will be 
> a software upgrade down the road. I'm shocked the old Canopy guys didn't code 
> that into the first release to be honest.

The GPS/reuse thing is for transmitters that are synced, that is transmitters 
belonging to the same system. Someone else's system won't be synced with yours 
and you won't see that benefit. So if you're thinking that's going to help 
between competitors it won't.

Greg

> 
> Dylan
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
> To: Oliver Garraux
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
> 
> 
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
> 
>>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). 
>>> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're 
>>> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. 
>>> Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few 
>>> urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for 
>>> backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for 
>>> licensed  frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the 
>>> future.
>>> 
>>> Greg
>> 
>> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
>> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
>> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
>> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.  I guess
>> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
>> Ghz.  AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
>> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
>> available @ 24 Ghz.
>> 
>> It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
>> licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
>> 
>> Oliver
> 
> I don't think it's an FCC issue so much as 24Ghz has so much fade tendency 
> with atmospheric moisture that an omnidirectional antenna is about as 
> effective as a resistor coupled to ground (i.e. dummy load).
> 
> The only way you can get a signal to go any real distance at that frequency 
> is to use a highly directional high-gain antenna at both ends.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Jon Lewis]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Joe Greco wrote:


Those of us still doing work with USENET know that it isn't dead, far
from it, but we're aware that there's a certain amount of illicit
traffic.


A certain amount?  Even years and years ago, when I last ran a server, 
I'd wager porn and warez was statistically "all" of the traffic.



It's kind of like the way that pr0n and w4rez dominate all the Internet,
but this doesn't seem to faze Internet network operators.


Perhaps because the pr0n and w4rez are just bits on the wire for most 
operators, not terabytes of disk space on servers we own.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> Because NNTP is still alive and kicking.

Of course it is.  Usenet is *still* the best experiment ever run in
the area of scalable, distributed forums, which I think is a tribute
to the vision of its originators (and to the architects of NNTP).
Newsgroups share a number of significant advantages with mailing lists --
not surprising, given their lineage and the observation that mailing lists
have been unidirectionally or bidirectionally gatewayed with newsgroups
for decades.

1. They're asynchronous: you don't have to interact in real time.
You can download messages when connected to the 'net, then read
them and compose responses when offline. 
2. They work reasonably well even in the presence of multiple outages
and severe congestion.
3. They're push, not pull, so new content just shows up.  Web forums
and social sites require that you go fishing for it.
4. They scale beautifully.
5. They allow you to use YOUR software with the user interface of YOUR
choosing rather than being compelled to learn 687 different
web forums with 687 different user interfaces, all of which
range from "merely bad" to "hideously bad".
6. You can archive them locally...
7. ...which means you can search them locally with the software of YOUR
choice.  Including when you're offline.  And provided you make
backups, you'll always have that archive.
8. They're portable: lists and newsgroups can be rehosted relatively easily.
9. (When properly run) they're relatively free of abuse vectors.
10. They're low-bandwidth, which is especially important at a point in
time when many people are interacting via metered services that
charge by the byte.  (Obviously I'm talking about text-only
newsgroups in this point -- of course I am, they're the most
important ones.)

And so on.

---rsk

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Michael Sinatra]

On 03/30/12 13:41, Henry Yen wrote:

uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".

does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?


Only a retrospective: I was hired by the central networking group at UC 
Berkeley in the late 90s to run the USENET service for campus.  At the 
time, the USENET service was still critically important for the teaching 
mission of the campus, as many courses (especially in EECS) had very 
active class newsgroups.  As you can see from examples such as CS 61a (
https://groups.google.com/group/ucb.class.cs61a/about?pli=1), use of 
these groups peaked while I was operating the service.  (The numbers are 
probably skewed a bit, as I don't know how much of the archives google 
was able to get from before the early 90s.  But still, by sheer volume, 
the early 2000s was probably the peak of the ucb.class hierarchy.)


I was following big footsteps: Chris van den Berg preceded me, and he 
made UCB the #3 USENET transit peer in the world.  Before that, Rob 
Robertson ran the service and he was the one who created the first 
overview database for INN and contributed the code for that.


I enjoyed running the service: It was heavily used and I enjoyed making 
contacts and setting up peers.  Then layers 8 and 9 settled in. 
Commodity bandwidth became very expensive, and demand for bandwidth 
simultaneously exploded due to file sharing, legal or otherwise.  My job 
became less of a matter of running a world-class service and more of a 
matter of "how do we throttle this thing, or just get rid of/outsource 
it?"--a question management would often ask.  I spent a lot of time 
adjusting rate-limits for peers and at one point we ended up putting 
USENET into the scavenger class behind a packetshaper.  An indignity, to 
be certain.


By the time of the economic collapse, usage had declined sufficiently 
that USENET was easy for management to put on the chopping block.  This, 
even though bandwidth had become much cheaper.  My job (thanks to my 
USENET tasks and systems background) had evolved into more of a general 
network engineering position, and I had a surplus of interesting work to 
do, so it wasn't a major loss for me.  Still, I am glad that USENET (and 
NNTP in particular) is going strong elsewhere.  I learned a lot from 
running the service, and to this day, I am still one of the more 
"systemy" network engineers out there.  I enjoy running DNS, NTP, and 
other system-based network services an much as I like configuring 
routers.  I think running USENET a while back had a lot to do with that.


michael

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Brett Watson]

On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Henry Yen wrote:
> 
>> uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
>> services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
>> any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".
>> 
>> does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?
> 
> UUNet's still been running NNTP/NNRP servers?
> I had an NNTP feed from them...back in 1995...when you could actually do a 
> feed on a T1 and have room for dial-up customer traffic.

There's a flashback! I was still shoveling news over UUCP to customers in Texas 
in '93 :)

-b

RE: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Dylan Bouterse]

A couple of thoughts. First, it's not fair to compare 24GHz to 2.4 or even 5Gig 
range due to the wave length. You will get 2.4GHz bleed through walls, windows, 
etc. VERY close to a 5GHz transmitter you may get some bleed through walls but 
not reliably. 24GHz will not propagate through objects as it's millimeter 
wavelength. That coupled with the fact it is a directional PTP product, you 
will be able to get a good amount of density of 24GHz PTP links using the same 
frequency in a small area (downtown for instance).

Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will also allow for frequency reuse to a 
point. I would like to see smaller channel sizes though. I hear it will be a 
software upgrade down the road. I'm shocked the old Canopy guys didn't code 
that into the first release to be honest.

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
To: Oliver Garraux
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)


On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:

>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). 
>> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're 
>> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like 
>> what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban 
>> or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. 
>> The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed  
>> frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future.
>> 
>> Greg
> 
> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.  I guess
> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
> Ghz.  AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
> available @ 24 Ghz.
> 
> It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
> licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
> 
> Oliver

I don't think it's an FCC issue so much as 24Ghz has so much fade tendency with 
atmospheric moisture that an omnidirectional antenna is about as effective as a 
resistor coupled to ground (i.e. dummy load).

The only way you can get a signal to go any real distance at that frequency is 
to use a highly directional high-gain antenna at both ends.

Owen

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Cameron Byrne]

On Mar 30, 2012 3:13 PM, "Christopher Morrow" 
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Henry Yen  wrote:
> > uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> > services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
> > any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably
deleted".
> >
> > does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?
>
> This is really about: "What do our customers pay for?" more than
> anything else. Keeping 12 diablo servers running for the zero actual
> customers who use them is ... patently a waste of assets.
>
> one server is ~1 sun-something + 1 large disk-array (at least)... so
> there's some significant savings in power and network ports alone.
>
> plus, Verizon is a Cellular carrier, just look at all of the
> advertisements you see for them, ever seen an "internet" add? or

Looks more like news groups than cellular to me. : /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-K71MpwCko

Cb

> "usenet" ? (fios doesn't count as it's a move by VZ back to
> monopoly-carrier status, not "internet")
>

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Raphael MAUNIER]

On Mar 30, 2012, at 23:46, "Fredy Kuenzler"  wrote:

> Am 30.03.2012 23:20, schrieb Raphael MAUNIER:
>> Sorry Fredy, but you are living in a care bear world ?
>> 
>> Do you think some people build an intense national backbone
>> 
>> You were @GPF last week, when Martin asked : Who want this to be
>> regulated ? And Who want to have his peering controled ? why you didn't
>> raise your hand ?
>> 
>> In my memory, no one did.
>> 
>> I didn't get my peering with France Telecom, so I get in touch with them
>> and I have a fair contrat and I have a good backbone quality. In my
>> market, I need for now direct access to them, and that's life.
>> 
>> My business is not made on the "wishes" to have free peering with my
>> incumbent.
> 
> I'm not saying I want this regulated, in fact I prefer to have it as it is
> and keep authorities out of the game. That's why I didn't raise my hand.
> 
> But: Fact is that competition commissions and regulators are investigating
> against incumbents and such. They could have avoided this easily if they
> would have been more cooperative and keep their policy less restrictive. I
> don't blame anyone who is filing against someone who is abusing market power.
> 
> Now, obviously, the French regulator sees the trouble and trys to understand
> and 'regulate' it the way they do it usually. From our perspective certainly
> not a good way, but why blaming the regulator? Blame those which made it all
> happen! Read: the restrictive incumbents which put obstacles in the way of
> everyone else.

I respect your position, but I'm not buying it. Those issue are the result of 
cheap transit provider trying to abuse their peers by selling a cheap ip 
transit and force the incumbent to upgrade.
That's exactly the start of all of this.

> 
> You've choosen to pay to get obstacles away. Others prefer to call the
> court. And probably the majority suffers in silence, especially the
> countless broadband users which actually pay our salaries and make our
> industry happening.

I came to see my incumbent to talk to them and really explain what I'm doing, I 
spent time to explain and get their points and I had some very good discussion 
about backbone and cost for a big eyeball ... 
They told me : no one came to us to really understand what are really the 
"global cost" even the French regulator !
So I still don't buy it !

> Regulators should primarily care about those, and
> therefore it's good that the French regulator actually made a move, however
> arguably in the wrong direction.

That's my point here. We are on the same line.
> 
> F.
> 

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Henry Yen  wrote:
> uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
> any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".
>
> does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?

This is really about: "What do our customers pay for?" more than
anything else. Keeping 12 diablo servers running for the zero actual
customers who use them is ... patently a waste of assets.

one server is ~1 sun-something + 1 large disk-array (at least)... so
there's some significant savings in power and network ports alone.

plus, Verizon is a Cellular carrier, just look at all of the
advertisements you see for them, ever seen an "internet" add? or
"usenet" ? (fios doesn't count as it's a move by VZ back to
monopoly-carrier status, not "internet")

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Miles Fidelman]

John Levine wrote:

 I thought it should have died when pr0n and
w4rez took it over (in the late 90's)..

Many of the tech groups remain quite healthy.  I still moderate
comp.compilers which gets about 100 posts/month.

Actually, it's fine with us that the ignorant masses think that usenet
is dead, since it tends to keep out the riffraff.



And NNTP is still one of the most brilliant protocols ever written.  
Replicated information, no central control, ad hoc group creation.  It's 
really a shame that the Netscape Collaboration Server was never open 
sourced (easy newsgroup management, a layer of user management) - 
facebook or googlegroups without the centralized control.


Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Joe Greco]

> >> I thought it should have died when pr0n and
> >> w4rez took it over (in the late 90's).. 
> 
> Many of the tech groups remain quite healthy.  I still moderate
> comp.compilers which gets about 100 posts/month.

Those of us still doing work with USENET know that it isn't dead, far
from it, but we're aware that there's a certain amount of illicit
traffic.

It's kind of like the way that pr0n and w4rez dominate all the Internet,
but this doesn't seem to faze Internet network operators.

> Actually, it's fine with us that the ignorant masses think that usenet
> is dead, since it tends to keep out the riffraff.

And that's the difference between USENET and the Internet; we've 
largely gotten our nice messaging network back now that all the AOL
newbies are instead attracted to all the forums and blogs of the
Internet; running a newsreader client is needlessly complex and may
be beyond some of them.

:-)

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

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Mar 30 21:12:26 2012 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
23-03-12405211  237312
24-03-12406791  237506
25-03-12406910  237612
26-03-12407108  237709
27-03-12407254  237193
28-03-12406770  236263
29-03-12406051  236496
30-03-12406585  236469


AS Summary
 40664  Number of ASes in routing system
 17035  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  3419  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS7029 : WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc
  111385888  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 30Mar12 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 406832   236438   17039441.9%   All ASes

AS6389  3379  199 318094.1%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.
AS7029  3419 1820 159946.8%   WINDSTREAM - Windstream
   Communications Inc
AS4766  2483 1015 146859.1%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS22773 1552  120 143292.3%   ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
   Cox Communications Inc.
AS2118  1427   14 141399.0%   RELCOM-AS OOO "NPO Relcom"
AS18566 2092  705 138766.3%   COVAD - Covad Communications
   Co.
AS28573 1745  492 125371.8%   NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS4323  1603  384 121976.0%   TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
   inc.
AS4755  1572  394 117874.9%   TATACOMM-AS TATA
   Communications formerly VSNL
   is Leading ISP
AS1785  1892  805 108757.5%   AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
   Communications, Inc.
AS10620 1817  809 100855.5%   Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS7552  1173  221  95281.2%   VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
   Corporation
AS8402  1738  805  93353.7%   CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom"
AS7303  1353  439  91467.6%   Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS26615  903   28  87596.9%   Tim Celular S.A.
AS8151  1493  671  82255.1%   Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS18101  932  157  77583.2%   RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
   Reliance Communications
   Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS4808  1101  347  75468.5%   CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
   network China169 Beijing
   Province Network
AS9394   888  207  68176.7%   CRNET CHINA RAILWAY
   Internet(CRNET)
AS7545  1659  983  67640.7%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
   Pty Ltd
AS17974 1787 1115  67237.6%   TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
   Telekomunikasi Indonesia
AS30036 1415  774  64145.3%   MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS -
   Mediacom Communications Corp
AS3356  1099  461  63858.1%   LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS17676  686   74  61289.2%   GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS19262  996  401  59559.7%   VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
   LLC
AS24560 1021  434  58757.5%   AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
   Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
   Services
AS3549  1004  435  56956.7%   GBLX Global Crossing Ltd.
AS22561  991  422  56957.4%   DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital
   Teleport Inc.
AS4804   654   95  55985.5%   MPX-AS Microplex PTY LTD
AS22047  584   31  55394.7%   VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A.

Total  44458148572960166.6%   Top 30 total


Possible Bogus Routes

10.86.64.32/30   AS65530 -Priv

BGP Update Report

[cidr-report]

BGP Update Report
Interval: 22-Mar-12 -to- 29-Mar-12 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS786 98735  3.9% 484.0 -- JANET The JNT Association
 2 - AS840278832  3.1%  39.1 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom"
 3 - AS982942019  1.6%  34.8 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet 
Backbone
 4 - AS12479   27956  1.1%  42.6 -- UNI2-AS France Telecom Espana SA
 5 - AS24560   25962  1.0%  25.3 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services
 6 - AS755224172  0.9%  20.3 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel Corporation
 7 - AS32528   22938  0.9%2293.8 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs
 8 - AS702921407  0.8%   6.0 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream 
Communications Inc
 9 - AS27947   20116  0.8%  28.5 -- Telconet S.A
10 - AS26615   18678  0.7%  20.7 -- Tim Celular S.A.
11 - AS28683   17766  0.7% 323.0 -- BENINTELECOM
12 - AS580016470  0.7%  52.0 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD 
Network Information Center
13 - AS23216   16342  0.6%  92.3 -- MEGADATOS S.A.
14 - AS784315780  0.6%  52.1 -- TWCABLE-BACKBONE - Road Runner 
HoldCo LLC
15 - AS17974   14834  0.6%   8.3 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT 
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
16 - AS45899   11964  0.5%  37.2 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp
17 - AS28573   11799  0.5%   5.8 -- NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
18 - AS845211344  0.5%   8.7 -- TE-AS TE-AS
19 - AS12008   10792  0.4% 131.6 -- ULTRADNS - Centergate Research, 
LLC.
20 - AS815110663  0.4%   7.1 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V.


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS132778990  0.3%4495.0 -- HP-MS HP-MS Autonomous System
 2 - AS577672353  0.1%2353.0 -- RTTC-AS Federal State-owned 
Enterprise Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Network
 3 - AS32528   22938  0.9%2293.8 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs
 4 - AS369267691  0.3%1538.2 -- CKL1-ASN
 5 - AS266781091  0.0%1091.0 -- ASN-QMFI - QUINCY MUTUAL FIRE 
INSURANCE, CO.
 6 - AS232661050  0.0%1050.0 -- COMCAST-23266 - Comcast Cable 
Communications
 7 - AS55665 926  0.0% 926.0 -- STMI-AS-ID PT Sampoerna 
Telemedia Indonesia
 8 - AS6066 1371  0.1% 685.5 -- VERIZON-BUSINESS-MAE-AS6066 - 
Verizon Business Network Services Inc.
 9 - AS16045 677  0.0% 677.0 -- SPEKTAR-AD Spektar AD
10 - AS169352000  0.1% 666.7 -- KSC-NETWORKS - Kingland Systems 
Corp.
11 - AS56915 617  0.0% 617.0 -- ASELITTELECOM Elit Telecom Ltd.
12 - AS15770 593  0.0% 593.0 -- DERWENTSIDE Derwentside 
District Council
13 - AS267791760  0.1% 586.7 -- PANDO-NETWORKS - Pando Networks
14 - AS48018 582  0.0% 582.0 -- MTB-COMPUTER-SERVICES-LTD MTB 
Computer Services Ltd
15 - AS48632 580  0.0% 580.0 -- BTS-HOLDINGS-PLC BTS Holdings 
PLC
16 - AS39779 576  0.0% 576.0 -- MESHDIGITAL Mesh Digital Ltd
17 - AS12295 570  0.0% 570.0 -- LONDONLINK Professional 
Telecommunications Ltd.
18 - AS28861 569  0.0% 569.0 -- CARR-FUTURES-LONDON-AS Carr 
Futures Inc London
19 - AS31392 558  0.0% 558.0 -- PHOENIX-VENTURE-HOLDINGS-AS 
Phoenix Venture Holdings Ltd
20 - AS530451090  0.0% 545.0 -- 


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 130.36.34.0/2411460  0.4%   AS32528 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs
 2 - 130.36.35.0/2411460  0.4%   AS32528 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs
 3 - 204.234.0.0/1710768  0.4%   AS7029  -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream 
Communications Inc
 4 - 62.36.252.0/22 8621  0.3%   AS12479 -- UNI2-AS France Telecom Espana SA
 5 - 62.36.249.0/24 6491  0.2%   AS12479 -- UNI2-AS France Telecom Espana SA
 6 - 122.161.0.0/16 6329  0.2%   AS24560 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services
 7 - 182.64.0.0/16  6240  0.2%   AS24560 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services
 8 - 62.36.241.0/24 5903  0.2%   AS12479 -- UNI2-AS France Telecom Espana SA
 9 - 62.36.210.0/24 5675  0.2%   AS12479 -- UNI2-AS France Telecom Espana SA
10 - 194.63.9.0/24  4915  0.2%   AS1273  -- CW Cable and Wireless Worldwide 
plc
11 - 194.209.13.0/244495  0.2%   AS13277 -- HP-MS HP-MS Autonomous System
12 - 194.209.211.0/24   4495  0.2%   AS13277 -- HP-MS HP-MS Autonomous System
13 - 217.15.120.0/224336  0.2%   AS56696 -- ASLIQUID-MPLS Liquid 
Telecommunications Ltd
14 - 205.107.121.0/24   4335  0.2%   AS5976  -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD 
Network Information Center
15 - 41.223.57.0/24 3839  0.1%   AS36926 -- CKL1-ASN
16 - 41.223.56.0/24 383

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[John Levine]

>> I thought it should have died when pr0n and
>> w4rez took it over (in the late 90's).. 

Many of the tech groups remain quite healthy.  I still moderate
comp.compilers which gets about 100 posts/month.

Actually, it's fine with us that the ignorant masses think that usenet
is dead, since it tends to keep out the riffraff.

R's,
John

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Fredy Kuenzler]

Am 30.03.2012 23:20, schrieb Raphael MAUNIER:

Sorry Fredy, but you are living in a care bear world ?

Do you think some people build an intense national backbone

You were @GPF last week, when Martin asked : Who want this to be
regulated ? And Who want to have his peering controled ? why you didn't
raise your hand ?

In my memory, no one did.

I didn't get my peering with France Telecom, so I get in touch with them
and I have a fair contrat and I have a good backbone quality. In my
market, I need for now direct access to them, and that's life.

My business is not made on the "wishes" to have free peering with my
incumbent.


I'm not saying I want this regulated, in fact I prefer to have it as it is
and keep authorities out of the game. That's why I didn't raise my hand.

But: Fact is that competition commissions and regulators are investigating
against incumbents and such. They could have avoided this easily if they
would have been more cooperative and keep their policy less restrictive. I
don't blame anyone who is filing against someone who is abusing market power.

Now, obviously, the French regulator sees the trouble and trys to understand
and 'regulate' it the way they do it usually. From our perspective certainly
not a good way, but why blaming the regulator? Blame those which made it all
happen! Read: the restrictive incumbents which put obstacles in the way of
everyone else.

You've choosen to pay to get obstacles away. Others prefer to call the
court. And probably the majority suffers in silence, especially the
countless broadband users which actually pay our salaries and make our
industry happening. Regulators should primarily care about those, and
therefore it's good that the French regulator actually made a move, however
arguably in the wrong direction.

F.

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Raphael MAUNIER]

-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell 
Organization: United Federation of Planets
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:37:51 -0700
To: 'NANOG list' 
Subject: Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your
Peering

>In a message written on Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 09:20:10PM +, Raphael
>MAUNIER wrote:
>> You were @GPF last week, when Martin asked : Who want this to be
>>regulated
>> ? And Who want to have his peering controled ? why you didn't raise your
>> hand ?
>> 
>> In my memory, no one did.
>
>It's also fearmongering.

You may be right.
>
>I am not in favor of the type of regulation that Martin alluded to
>in his question.  However, I also do not think all regulation is
>bad.  As long as the industry's attitude is to avoid the regulator
>at all costs the regulator will make decisions without information
>and consultation, and those decisions will be bad.

I spent time to talk to them ( hours honestly ) trying to explain what is
really the peering.

I don't get the point to ask for a "consultation" and less than the month
after, oblige people to do it ?

>
>"Regulation" could be as benign as "Anyone who peers in France must
>publically post their peering policy" to something as sinister as
>"the regulator will dictate all peering arrangements to all parties".

This is my problem. In a near future, this will be the case. My guess is :
how to get some vat on top of this.
Today there is no prices, so no vat, we need to get some.

>Everyone on this list should be working _with_ the regulators
>wherever possible to educate them, and help shape regulations to
>meet your business needs.

Toons of hours for this ? Really ? Ok, I don't speak english very well, it
seems that it's the same for french.

> Other industries have done this for
>years.  Lobbiests get paid millions of dollars to shape government
>regulations in favor of their employer; peering and more importantly
>regulation of the Internet is no different.
+1
>
>-- 
>   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 09:20:10PM +, Raphael MAUNIER 
wrote:
> You were @GPF last week, when Martin asked : Who want this to be regulated
> ? And Who want to have his peering controled ? why you didn't raise your
> hand ?
> 
> In my memory, no one did.

It's also fearmongering.

I am not in favor of the type of regulation that Martin alluded to
in his question.  However, I also do not think all regulation is
bad.  As long as the industry's attitude is to avoid the regulator
at all costs the regulator will make decisions without information
and consultation, and those decisions will be bad.

"Regulation" could be as benign as "Anyone who peers in France must
publically post their peering policy" to something as sinister as
"the regulator will dictate all peering arrangements to all parties".
Everyone on this list should be working _with_ the regulators
wherever possible to educate them, and help shape regulations to
meet your business needs.  Other industries have done this for
years.  Lobbiests get paid millions of dollars to shape government
regulations in favor of their employer; peering and more importantly
regulation of the Internet is no different.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpl4YBeIK4YB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "K. Scott Bethke" 

> No comment just a question... Why did it take so long?
> 
> All good things must come to an end. and for NNTP that end was when
> web based Forums software and P2P was invented. Seriously does anyone
> still use UUCP for email? 

Yeah, that has nothing to do with whether Usenet is useful.

Nobody (to speak of) has used UUCP for *Usenet* since about 1997 or 8.

> I thought it should have died when pr0n and
> w4rez took it over (in the late 90's).. 

And yet, I was a fairly active participant in several tech and rec groups 
in 96 and 02-04ish, and it seemed perfectly serviceable to me.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Raphael MAUNIER]

Sorry Fredy, but you are living in a care bear world ?

Do you think some people build an intense national backbone

You were @GPF last week, when Martin asked : Who want this to be regulated
? And Who want to have his peering controled ? why you didn't raise your
hand ?

In my memory, no one did.

I didn't get my peering with France Telecom, so I get in touch with them
and I have a fair contrat and I have a good backbone quality. In my
market, I need for now direct access to them, and that's life.

My business is not made on the "wishes" to have free peering with my
incumbent.


--
Raphaël Maunier
NEO TELECOMS
CTO / Directeur Ingénierie
AS8218






-Original Message-
From: Fredy Kuenzler 
Organization: Init Seven AG - http://www.init7.net/
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:06:39 +0200
To: 'NANOG list' 
Subject: Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your
Peering

>Am 30.03.2012 20:21, schrieb Raphael MAUNIER:
>> This is now the end. The French regulator ( Arcep ) is now asking all
>>the
>> people with an ASN in France ( with a L33 license ) to get all their
>> information on their peering.
>>
>> The Arcep claim it's for the "net neutrality" and still don't understand
>> it works because it's self regulated.
>
>I suggest to stop whining. Why do we see regulators stepping in? Simply
>because some networks (mainly, but not only incumbents) abused their
>market
>power. It doesn't surprise me that it starts in France, as it's a common
>knowledge that the French incumbent has only one default answer, which is
>'no'.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> You have to give them information twice a year
>>
>> We ( @Neo Telecoms ) and other folks in France will probably setup
>> something with other carriers ( I already had some discussion with some
>> of you ) to talk to them on a single voice.
>
>Much appreciated. They certainly will come to some automated solution
>where
>they can generate reports on BGP feeds we send to their route collector.
>Everyone with proper route tagging should be ok and live happily.
>
>If, after all, the French incumbent has trouble to find an appropriate
>explanation for the regulator to justify their policy, so be it...
>

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Fredy Kuenzler]

Am 30.03.2012 20:21, schrieb Raphael MAUNIER:

This is now the end. The French regulator ( Arcep ) is now asking all the
people with an ASN in France ( with a L33 license ) to get all their
information on their peering.

The Arcep claim it's for the "net neutrality" and still don't understand
it works because it's self regulated.


I suggest to stop whining. Why do we see regulators stepping in? Simply
because some networks (mainly, but not only incumbents) abused their market
power. It doesn't surprise me that it starts in France, as it's a common
knowledge that the French incumbent has only one default answer, which is 'no'.


[...]

You have to give them information twice a year

We ( @Neo Telecoms ) and other folks in France will probably setup
something with other carriers ( I already had some discussion with some
of you ) to talk to them on a single voice.


Much appreciated. They certainly will come to some automated solution where
they can generate reports on BGP feeds we send to their route collector.
Everyone with proper route tagging should be ok and live happily.

If, after all, the French incumbent has trouble to find an appropriate
explanation for the regulator to justify their policy, so be it...

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[K. Scott Bethke]

On Mar 30, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Henry Yen wrote:

> uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> services on March 31, 2012

> 
> does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?

No comment just a question...  Why did it take so long?  

All good things must come to an end.  and for NNTP that end was when web based 
Forums software and P2P was invented.  Seriously does anyone still use UUCP for 
email?  I thought it should have died when pr0n and w4rez took it over (in the 
late 90's)..  but that ended up fueling the need :)  Who is the Kim Dotcom of 
usenet?  Lets bust him and move on.

-Scott

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Joe Greco]

> On 3/30/2012 4:41 PM, Henry Yen wrote:
> > uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> > services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
> > any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".
> >
> > does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?
>
> Obsolete protocol is obsolete?

Guessing: you mean ipv4?

Because NNTP is still alive and kicking.

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

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Alex Ryu]

Less, and less people keep using Usenet...
A lot of people just use Search Engine, Web download, P2P...
I guess given the traffic and data too stored, it may not be useful for the
effort to keep Usenet service running.

Alex


On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Henry Yen  wrote:

> uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
> any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".
>
> does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?
>
> --
> Henry YenAegis Information
> Systems, Inc.
> Senior Systems Programmer   Hicksville, New York
>1-800-AEGIS-00
> (800-234-4700)
>
>
>

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Andrew D Kirch]

On 3/30/2012 4:41 PM, Henry Yen wrote:

uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".

does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?


Obsolete protocol is obsolete?

Andrew

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Joe Greco]

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Henry Yen wrote:
> > uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> > services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
> > any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".
> >
> > does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?
> 
> UUNet's still been running NNTP/NNRP servers?
> I had an NNTP feed from them...back in 1995...when you could actually do a 
> feed on a T1 and have room for dial-up customer traffic.

UUNet hasn't been relevant to USENET for many, many, many years.

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

Re: uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Jon Lewis]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Henry Yen wrote:


uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".

does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?


UUNet's still been running NNTP/NNRP servers?
I had an NNTP feed from them...back in 1995...when you could actually do a 
feed on a T1 and have room for dial-up customer traffic.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

uunet ends newsfeed/newsreader in US

[Henry Yen]

uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
any content/data remaining after that date will be unrecoverably deleted".

does anyone on NANOG have any thoughtful comments on this?

-- 
Henry YenAegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer   Hicksville, New York
1-800-AEGIS-00 (800-234-4700)

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Arnaud Fenioux]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Leo Bicknell  wrote:

> In a message written on Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:50:43PM +0100, Mike
> Blanche wrote:
> > http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=9320
> >
> > That's quite a big list. :-( (assuming I understand that list to be
> > everyone licenced under L33-1)
>
> Can someone with more local knowledge explain a "L33" license?
>
In France, L33 is the license for companies that operate public networks
and provide public electronic communications services,
here is a translation (if you dare) :
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.fr&sl=fr&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do%3FidArticle%3DLEGIARTI24506015%26cidTexte%3DLEGITEXT06070987%26categorieLien%3Did%26dateTexte%3D20120330&usg=ALkJrhj-oUuDkvh8f068LcNFYXc0ceE-RQ

Looking at the names and some quick googling make me think this is
> like a CLEC license in the US.  If so, aren't they missing a
> fair number of the folks who might be present at an exchange but not
> have such a license?
>
all companies that operate their network for their own use,
but ARCEP will know most of the major peering relationships.
Let's hope it will help peering :/

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Robert Bonomi]

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org  Fri Mar 30 13:30:19 
> 2012
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:29:03 +0200
> From: Stefan Neufeind 
> To: "'NANOG list'" 
> Subject: Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering
>
> On 03/30/2012 08:21 PM, Raphael MAUNIER wrote:
> > 
> > This is now the end. The French regulator ( Arcep ) is now asking all the
> > people with an ASN in France ( with a L33 license ) to get all their
> > information on their peering.
>
> [...]
>
> > You have to give them information twice a year
>
> Well, then for a few hundered peerings send them one letter each and
> wait for a reaction :-)

If I were in an *evil* frame of mind, I'd do something like a color pdf
with white lettering on a white backgound.  Or maybe just do everything
in a 0.01 point high font.   

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Mike Andrews]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:05:35PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> >> You have to give them information twice a year

> > Well, then for a few hundered peerings send them one letter each and
> > wait for a reaction :-)
>
> Remember, these are bureaucrats??? Their reaction would be to fine
> you for not submitting each letter in triplicate, and then charge you
> interest on the fines. :-)

"The official state religion of France is Bureaucracy.  They've replaced
 the Trinity with the Triplicate."

(David Richerby)

Besides which, you'd be boosting the economy! They'd have to hire
people, and cash flow would increase. How can they *not* do it? 

-- 
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin 

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:50:43PM +0100, Mike Blanche 
wrote:
> http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=9320
> 
> That's quite a big list. :-( (assuming I understand that list to be
> everyone licenced under L33-1)

Can someone with more local knowledge explain a "L33" license?
Looking at the names and some quick googling make me think this is
like a CLEC license in the US.  If so, aren't they missing a
fair number of the folks who might be present at an exchange but not
have such a license?

I'm almost afraid to ask, since they will likely want to license such
folks... *sigh*

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpgK0GB6cCuY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Bill Woodcock]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


On Mar 30, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
>> You have to give them information twice a year
> 
> Well, then for a few hundered peerings send them one letter each and
> wait for a reaction :-)

Remember, these are bureaucrats…  Their reaction would be to fine you for not 
submitting each letter in triplicate, and then charge you interest on the 
fines.  :-)

-Bill




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=1jgK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 31 Mar, 2012

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  403929
Prefixes after maximum aggregation:  171635
Deaggregation factor:  2.35
Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 195814
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 40542
Prefixes per ASN:  9.96
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   32969
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15468
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5416
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:140
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  32
Max AS path prepend of ASN (48687)   24
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   555
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 265
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:   2342
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:2157
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:5295
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:2
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:   1252
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2531398224
Equivalent to 150 /8s, 226 /16s and 18 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   68.3
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   68.3
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   92.1
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  171545

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:98994
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   32099
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.08
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:   95394
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:39244
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4680
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   20.38
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1238
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:730
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.6
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 19
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:171
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  642314080
Equivalent to 38 /8s, 72 /16s and 239 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 81.5

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 131072-132095, 132096-133119
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 175/8, 180/8,
   182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8,
   219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:149258
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:75828
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.97
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   120636
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 49969
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:14935
ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 8.08
ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:5686
ARIN 

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Mike Blanche]

On 30 March 2012 19:27, Bill Woodcock  wrote:

> For those anglophones following this from afar, Malcolm Hutty's excellent
> submission is relevant to your interests:
>
>
> https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ARCEP-2012-02-09-FINAL.pdf
>
>
And here is who is caught:

http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=9320

That's quite a big list. :-( (assuming I understand that list to be
everyone licenced under L33-1)

Mike
-- 
Mike Blanche / mblan...@google.com / +44 7917 635 931
Google Peering & Content Distribution - Europe, Middle East and Africa

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

interesting discussion of jurisdiction.

> In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as 
> constituting an extra- 
> territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are 
> neither established in France nor 
> directly providing services within France, merely by virtue of their 
> interconnecting with a network that 
> does operate in France. 
>  
> Similar considerations apply, mutatis mutandis, to the application of a 
> reporting requirement to the 
> providers of content services established and operating outside France. We do 
> not consider the provision 
> of content in the French language to be sufficient, by itself, to place the 
> content provider within ARCEP’s 
> jurisdiction. 
>  
> We consider this lack of jurisdiction to be sufficient reason for ARCEP to 
> withdraw categories (b) and (d) 
> from the scope of persons enumerated in Article 1 of the Draft Decision. 

-e

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Stefan Neufeind]

On 03/30/2012 08:21 PM, Raphael MAUNIER wrote:
> 
> This is now the end. The French regulator ( Arcep ) is now asking all the
> people with an ASN in France ( with a L33 license ) to get all their
> information on their peering.

[...]

> You have to give them information twice a year

Well, then for a few hundered peerings send them one letter each and
wait for a reaction :-)


Cheers,
 Stefan

Re: French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Bill Woodcock]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


On Mar 30, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Raphael MAUNIER wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> This is now the end. The French regulator ( Arcep ) is now asking all the
> people with an ASN in France ( with a L33 license ) to get all their
> information on their peering.
> 
> The Arcep claim it's for the "net neutrality" and still don't understand
> it works because it's self regulated.
> 
> So, some of US network with a L33 License will also have to respond (
> obligation because you have the L33-1)
> 
> The documents can be downloaded here
> http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=&tx_gsactualite_pi1[uid]=1508&tx_gs
> actualite_pi1[backID]=1&cHash=ed82d44a55 : ( french for now, english
> courtesy version will come soon )
> 
> The document is asking for informations like : BW, Prices, contract or
> not, level of use, date of the contract S
> 
> You have to give them information twice a year

For those anglophones following this from afar, Malcolm Hutty's excellent 
submission is relevant to your interests:

https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ARCEP-2012-02-09-FINAL.pdf

-Bill




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=dNaW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering

[Raphael MAUNIER]

Hello All,

This is now the end. The French regulator ( Arcep ) is now asking all the
people with an ASN in France ( with a L33 license ) to get all their
information on their peering.

The Arcep claim it's for the "net neutrality" and still don't understand
it works because it's self regulated.

So, some of US network with a L33 License will also have to respond (
obligation because you have the L33-1)

The documents can be downloaded here
http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=&tx_gsactualite_pi1[uid]=1508&tx_gs
actualite_pi1[backID]=1&cHash=ed82d44a55 : ( french for now, english
courtesy version will come soon )

The document is asking for informations like : BW, Prices, contract or
not, level of use, date of the contract S

You have to give them information twice a year



We ( @Neo Telecoms ) and other folks in France will probably setup
something with other carriers ( I already had some discussion with some of
you ) to talk to them on a single voice.

--
Raphaël Maunier
NEO TELECOMS
CTO / Directeur Ingénierie
AS8218

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Cody Grosskopf]

What does Comcast do if you exceed 20 meg? We were told by AT&T that anything 
over the specified limit would be dropped, so we use rate limiting...not sure 
if Comcast does the same.

Cody

- Original Message -
From: "Brian R. Watters" 
To: "NANOG list" 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:36:43 PM
Subject: Comcast Ethernet Feed

We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant 
as well as a BGP feed across the same link.

I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice 
for deploying for optimal performance across this interface.

Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are seeing some 
real issues such as.

Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to Ethernet) via a 
laptop gives the level of performance we would expect, However as soon as we 
terminate to our router via the GIGE which is set to 100MB full duplex and all 
flow control turned off (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 
100MB fast Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed 
when direct connected.

Ideas?


BRW


Notice to Recipient:  Information contained in this message may be privileged, 
confidential and  protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended 
recipient, it is  strictly prohibited to use, disseminate or copy this 
communication. If you  have received this in error, please reply to the sender 
and then delete the  message.Thank you.

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Todd Lyons]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Nathan Anderson  wrote:
> On Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:03 PM, Brian R. Watters 
>  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Fast Ether has always been set @ auto
>
> Just in case you missed it, I would echo Brielle's earlier advice: please try 
> forcing both laptop and the FE it's plugged into to 100/Full, auto disabled, 
> and try your tests again.  I feel like this thread has developed an unhealthy 
> fixation with the GE <-> Comcast segment when it's just as likely that it's 
> working perfectly fine and the problem is between Laptop <-> FE. :-)
> For whatever reason, I have historically had very bad luck/experience with 
> 7200 FE interfaces and auto-negotiation, FWIW.

Ditto!  Plug laptop_2 into one of the FE ports and see if you get good
speeds between the laptops.  On the 7200, show interface for each of
the FE ports, compare to what the laptops think it has.  Our 7200's
have FE ports that have to be hard coded to get full duplex.  (We no
longer have that issue since almost all 7200's have only GigE ports,
we only have one 7204 with a FE port and it's the only one that's hard
coded to duplex full).

...Todd
-- 
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a
violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Martin Golding