Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

[Michiel Klaver]

At 01-05-2012 18:41, Hank Disuko wrote:
> Hi folks, 
> 
> I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show 
> realtime link utilization via snmp?
> 

Guess Observium is really up to your alley :)
www.observium.org

Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)

[Adam Atkinson]

Jay Ashworth wrote:


Now, those codecs *are* specially tuned for spoken word -- if you try
to stuff music down them, it's not gonna work very well at all...


It was claimed to me many years ago that the 4kHz cutoff used in POTS 
serves women and children less well than it does adult males. I have
never been aware that I have any greater problems understanding women or 
children on the phone than I do men, but my hearing is not great. I 
can't hear the difference between G.711 and G.729, for example, but some 
people can.


Googling "PCM adult male voice", "4kHz adult male" and similar isn't 
finding me anything. Was I told nonsense?

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

[Nathan Eisenberg]

Php network weathermap works well for me.  The configuration language is pretty 
straightforward, and it's easy to consume data from either the usual suspects 
(mrtg), or to write a plugin that uses a custom (sql or other) datasource.

This gets you within 60 seconds of realtime, and the price (time) is right.

Nathan Eisenberg
Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!

- Reply message -
From: "Hank Disuko" 
Date: Tue, May 1, 2012 9:42 am
Subject: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin
To: "NANOG" 



Hi folks,

I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show realtime 
link utilization via snmp?

Mikrotik's "The Dude" app actually does exactly what I'm looking for, but the 
snmp support for non-RouterOS devices seems to be lacking, as it simply won't 
enumerate my switch interfaces in order to capture utilization.

I've downloaded several trial tools (WhatsUp, NetCure, Solarwinds LANsurveyor 
etc.) but they don't serve this very basic need of mine to see the realtime 
link util in the diagram.

Thanks,
Hank Disuko

POTS Ending (Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Jared Mauch]

On May 2, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Many states have regulations regarding how long dial tone needs to last
> during a power outage.  Iowa's PUC (the IUB) requires at least two hours of
> backup power.  We design ours for eight hours.

One thing of note that I've been tracking is this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-16/landline-service-becoming-obsolete/54321184/1

I'm somewhat dubious about the following claims on the part of the carrier.  
This is a carrier that wants to meter your cellular data but provides wifi 
service inferior to the cellular data to "offload" their wireless network.

-- snip --
"Bill sponsors and phone companies including AT&T say deregulating land-line 
phone service will increase competition and allow carriers to invest in better 
technology rather than expand a dying service. Some consumer organizations fear 
the change will hurt affordable service, especially in rural areas."
-- snip --

- Jared

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow  said:
> in the last 2 neighborhoods I've lived in... near/around ashburn, va
> (home to verizon, mci, lots of telco/bell-shaped-heads) I've always
> been serviced from a remote terminal, that has often failed when the
> power has cycled... There's a slew of places in the US where you don't
> actually go all the way back to the CO on a single copper pair :(

Here in Huntsville, AL, I'm not sure if BellSouth/AT&T has anybody left
on copper.  They rolled out a lot of fiber in the 1990s, slowed down for
the merger, and then picked back up.

Just over a year ago, the whole area lost power when tornadoes nearly
hit the nearby nuclear plant and took out a majority of the high-voltage
transmission lines and towers.  Over the hours after the power failed,
my DSL died, then POTS dialtone died, and then cell service died.
Suprisingly my cable TV stayed working the longest.  My cell phone also
returned to service first.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

RE: Operation Ghost Click

[Frank Bulk]

Many states have regulations regarding how long dial tone needs to last
during a power outage.  Iowa's PUC (the IUB) requires at least two hours of
backup power.  We design ours for eight hours.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmad...@hiwaay.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:03 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Operation Ghost Click



Not so much.  As has been pointed out here many times before, many
people now get POTS lines from remote cabinets that have limited battery
life and fail in a power outage lasting more than a few minutes.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" 

> On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:10:28 -0700, Jeroen van Aart said:
> > Technical specs aside I believe you are mistaken with regards to the
> > actual every day reality. My experience (and anyone else I talked to)
> > calling to and from mobile phones has been 100% a bad one with regards
> > to audio quality.
> 
> I look at my Samsung cell phone, and the tiny speaker squeezed in up over the
> screen at one end, and then I think of the large speakers in the handset of an
> old-school Bell system rotary phone. Then I think about the fact that my
> laptop has pretty damned good sound quality when I plug in a good pair of
> Kenwood KPM-410 headphones, and sounds totally crappy over the tiny built-in
> speakers that Dell provided.
> 
> It may not be the codec that sucks...

Right.

Me and my business partner have both spent quite a number of years involved
with sound reinforcement and other types of audio engineering, and we're 
therefore better positioned to evaluate the transmit and receive audio of
various communications channels and physical interfaces there to.

It is *often* the analog components and housing that make things sound
suboptimal, and if you need proof of this, I call to your attention some
NPR phoners which are done with gear like the JK Audio BlueDriver 3, and
broadcast microphones.  It's possible to get to within about 47% or so of
the sampling rate of the codec using gear like that, and it's pretty easy
(for a sound guy) to spot that combination in a live broadcast.

It's also worth noting that even if the recording format is VHS, it's very
easy to discern the difference between consumer cameras, pro SDTV, and pro
HDTV, in looking at the playback signal -- the differences are subtle, but
they are identifiable.

Now, those codecs *are* specially tuned for spoken word -- if you try
to stuff music down them, it's not gonna work very well at all...

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: Operation Ghost Click

[Joe Hamelin]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM,  wrote:
> It may not be the codec that sucks...

Yeah, it is.  Sit on hold with some music that is at a low volume and
you'll hear part that turn into white noise at times.  Mobile operators us
codecs that are tuned for human voice.  Get sounds away from voice and they
turn to mush.  Back in a past life when I was a broadcast engineer we would
use dial-up lines for remotes.  If the remote was in the same CO and it was
an analog (mechanical) office we could get 8-10kHz audio through a pair,
and flat if we used a bit of equalization.  S/N was good enough to play
records for an AM station.  Of course, now in the day of cell phones the
term "broadcast quality" has lost all meaning. Field reporters using cell
phones for live broadcast!  There is a reason that the FCC set aside 30kHz
channels for electronic news gathering (ENG.)  At least some stations still
order up ISDN lines for remotes.

--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jeroen van Aart" 

> I don't doubt it. However my practical experience is such that 100% of
> the time (I lost count after 20 or so, in a decade) I experienced a
> power failure the phone would still work. I am sure I am not the only
> one.

Sure.  (We're not really having this conversation here, are we? :-)

Copper POTS service is centrally powered from a battery plant in the wire
center, which is generally something like -52V nominal at 6000-8000ADC 
continuous.

If you get a tool across those busbars uninsulated, it will flash into
plasma much faster than you can blink; this happened at SPBGFLXA89H in
the... mid to late 80s?  I no longer remember the details, but the guy
couldn't hear for several days, and the *entire* CO -- 30klines of GTD-5
and 100klines of 5E Remote -- was No Dial Tone for at least 12 hours
while they cleaned it up; SPPD and PCSO were stationed on streetcorners
to take emergency reports.

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: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Jeroen van Aart]

Sean Harlow wrote:
Originally, you said VoIP and cellular used bad codecs.  


Yeah, I overlooked that important detail, sorry.

The cellular world works with less bandwidth and more loss than the VoIP world usually deals with, so while us VoIP guys sometimes use their codecs (GSM for example) they don't tend to bother with ours. 


Agreed.


That said, the article you link is talking about the same sort of improvements 
by doubling the sampling rate, so the end result is similar.


Yes, but it shouldn't be necessary to offer these "HD" services as an 
extra. It should be standard.


Greetings,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Jeroen van Aart]

Jared Mauch wrote:

Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it 
does are the same reasons that IP service may fail.  The failure modes can 
depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible 
static on the line) that cause your ear to retrain, which may cause a DSL 
device to comparably retrain.  The same is true for shared medium such as CATV 
but this has other problems as well, if not well isolated, somebody can short 
out the segment or send garbage at the wrong channel, etc.


I don't doubt it. However my practical experience is such that 100% of 
the time (I lost count after 20 or so, in a decade) I experienced a 
power failure the phone would still work. I am sure I am not the only one.


And these concern power outages in various locations, from the mountains 
of Coastal Oregon to the Monterey Bay Area. And from trees falling over 
the power lines to exploding transformers (two at once actually :-).


I guess the phone companies just do a better job at keeping up their 
infrastructure. I don't know how often the phone cable is buried 
compared to where the power cables are exposed to the elements. But I 
would think that (more frequently) burying the phone cables is one 
reason it's more reliable.


That's why (burying cables) in the Netherlands you would get a power 
outage maybe once or twice a decade as opposed to every fortnight.


Greetings,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Jared Mauch]

This device uses cellular only. Don't live in vz territory. Live in AT&T pots 
only land. No cable here either. 

Jared Mauch

On May 2, 2012, at 5:33 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On 5/2/12, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>> Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a
>> long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box.
>> Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower
>> loses power (usually 8-12 hours).
> 
> Hi Jared,
> 
> Beware that the Verizon ONTs shut down all services *except* POTs when
> they lose AC power. Some kind of conservation mode to maximize the
> time 911 is available I guess. If you want Internet service (for VOIP)
> to continue during a power outage, you'll have to stack another UPS in
> front of it.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Sean Harlow]

On May 2, 2012, at 16:10, Jeroen van Aart wrote:

> Technical specs aside I believe you are mistaken with regards to the actual 
> every day reality. My experience (and anyone else I talked to) calling to and 
> from mobile phones has been 100% a bad one with regards to audio quality. I 
> know the bandwidth allows for better quality, but carriers don't do it, they 
> do the opposite.
> 
> Why else would a mobile phone carrier feel the need to advertise an "HD" 
> (shouldn't it be "HIFI"?) quality line (i.e. a quality that's standard with 
> every land line and already suboptimal):
> 
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402598,00.asp
> 
> "Sprint Brings HD Voice Calls to U.S."

Originally, you said VoIP and cellular used bad codecs.  I responded that any 
decent VoIP provider supports codecs equaling or beating landlines.  I didn't 
say anything about cellular.  A G.711 call over a solid internet connection 
will sound entirely identical to any landline telephone call that leaves the 
local analog facilities and a G.722 call will make G.711 and thus landlines 
sound like cellular by comparison.

The cellular world works with less bandwidth and more loss than the VoIP world 
usually deals with, so while us VoIP guys sometimes use their codecs (GSM for 
example) they don't tend to bother with ours.  That said, the article you link 
is talking about the same sort of improvements by doubling the sampling rate, 
so the end result is similar.
---
Sean Harlow
s...@seanharlow.info

Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[William Herrin]

On 5/2/12, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a
> long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box.
> Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower
> loses power (usually 8-12 hours).

Hi Jared,

Beware that the Verizon ONTs shut down all services *except* POTs when
they lose AC power. Some kind of conservation mode to maximize the
time 911 is available I guess. If you want Internet service (for VOIP)
to continue during a power outage, you'll have to stack another UPS in
front of it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



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

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:10:28 -0700, Jeroen van Aart said:

> Technical specs aside I believe you are mistaken with regards to the
> actual every day reality. My experience (and anyone else I talked to)
> calling to and from mobile phones has been 100% a bad one with regards
> to audio quality.

I look at my Samsung cell phone, and the tiny speaker squeezed in up over the
screen at one end, and then I think of the large speakers in the handset of an
old-school Bell system rotary phone.  Then I think about the fact that my
laptop has pretty damned good sound quality when I plug in a good pair of
Kenwood KPM-410 headphones, and sounds totally crappy over the tiny built-in
speakers that Dell provided.

It may not be the codec that sucks...


pgpkGZK7NZDAX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Adams  wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jeroen van Aart  said:
>> Not withstanding that, according to you, in some places the landlines
>> "clipped the copper below the ground-level" I believe that vast majority
>> of the country has working copper phone lines that continue to work
>> during a power outage.
>
> Not so much.  As has been pointed out here many times before, many
> people now get POTS lines from remote cabinets that have limited battery
> life and fail in a power outage lasting more than a few minutes.

yes, this.

in the last 2 neighborhoods I've lived in... near/around ashburn, va
(home to verizon, mci, lots of telco/bell-shaped-heads) I've always
been serviced from a remote terminal, that has often failed when the
power has cycled... There's a slew of places in the US where you don't
actually go all the way back to the CO on a single copper pair :(

never mind the places where the mini-co bundles you up on some
mpls/ccc/etc link ...

anyway :)

VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)

[Jared Mauch]

On May 2, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:

> 
> I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a 
> POTS line.


This is why many people use g711ulaw or other codec.

Personally I would not work with anyone that doesn't do g711ulaw (88.2kbit when 
IP packet overhead added in).

There are other codecs such as G.722.1 & G.722.2 but the support isn't as broad 
as g711ulaw/alaw.

Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it 
does are the same reasons that IP service may fail.  The failure modes can 
depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible 
static on the line) that cause your ear to retrain, which may cause a DSL 
device to comparably retrain.  The same is true for shared medium such as CATV 
but this has other problems as well, if not well isolated, somebody can short 
out the segment or send garbage at the wrong channel, etc.

Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a 
long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box.  
Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower 
loses power (usually 8-12 hours).

I also am concerned about 911 service.  When dialing 911 recently from my 
mobile, I should have dialed it from my home phone as I was routed a few times 
to get to the right fire dispatch team.

Oh well.

- Jared

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Jeroen van Aart]

Sean Harlow wrote:

Then you'll be happy to know that most VoIP phones default to and good VoIP providers 
gladly support G.711, the exact same codec used in all digital trunks in the POTS 
network.  Also, an on-the-ball VoIP carrier will be pushing G.722 "HD Voice" 
devices which offer about double the audio bandwidth in the same data bandwidth 
(64kbit/sec/stream) as G.711.


Technical specs aside I believe you are mistaken with regards to the 
actual every day reality. My experience (and anyone else I talked to) 
calling to and from mobile phones has been 100% a bad one with regards 
to audio quality. I know the bandwidth allows for better quality, but 
carriers don't do it, they do the opposite.


Why else would a mobile phone carrier feel the need to advertise an "HD" 
(shouldn't it be "HIFI"?) quality line (i.e. a quality that's standard 
with every land line and already suboptimal):


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402598,00.asp

"Sprint Brings HD Voice Calls to U.S."

Whatever...

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Jeroen van Aart  said:
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >wow, 1990 much? are you actually just trolling today perhaps?
> 
> No, what is wrong with using a land line, a rotary phone and enjoying a 
> reliable service? Plus a superior audio quality as opposed to the 
> compressed to hell quality of mobile phones.

As others pointed out, there are many digital codecs that are superior
to the audio quality of a rotary phone.

> Not withstanding that, according to you, in some places the landlines 
> "clipped the copper below the ground-level" I believe that vast majority 
> of the country has working copper phone lines that continue to work 
> during a power outage.

Not so much.  As has been pointed out here many times before, many
people now get POTS lines from remote cabinets that have limited battery
life and fail in a power outage lasting more than a few minutes.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Jeroen van Aart]

Christopher Morrow wrote:

wow, 1990 much? are you actually just trolling today perhaps?


No, what is wrong with using a land line, a rotary phone and enjoying a 
reliable service? Plus a superior audio quality as opposed to the 
compressed to hell quality of mobile phones.


Not withstanding that, according to you, in some places the landlines 
"clipped the copper below the ground-level" I believe that vast majority 
of the country has working copper phone lines that continue to work 
during a power outage.


I fail to see why you must call me a troll for saying such a thing, 
alas, maybe it can be attributed to a bad hair day.


Regards,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Sean Harlow]

Then you'll be happy to know that most VoIP phones default to and good VoIP 
providers gladly support G.711, the exact same codec used in all digital trunks 
in the POTS network.  Also, an on-the-ball VoIP carrier will be pushing G.722 
"HD Voice" devices which offer about double the audio bandwidth in the same 
data bandwidth (64kbit/sec/stream) as G.711.

If your carrier is forcing G.729 or GSM, they're a joke.
---
Sean Harlow
s...@seanharlow.info

On May 2, 2012, at 15:52, Eric Wieling wrote:

> 
> I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a 
> POTS line.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: Jeroen van Aart
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Operation Ghost Click
> 
> wow, 1990 much? are you actually just trolling today perhaps?
> 
> 

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Jeroen van Aart]

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

Actually, I said that, not Jason.  Jason just used mail software that *can't get
quoting right* to reply to my message, so your quote of his message got the
attribution wrong.


Sorry, I don't keep track of who is unable to quote properly. But I do 
always try to make an effort to quote properly. :-)



Foolhardy or not, it's probably unwise for an ISP to say "It's OK, *nobody* 
would
be that foolhardy" and snip the service...


I am not sure about IP phones, but there are laws regulating this for 
mobile phones. So my unlocked simless android phones (I only use smart 
phones as testing tools for development) still are able to dial 911.


Regards,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

RE: Operation Ghost Click

[Eric Wieling]

I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a 
POTS line.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:43 PM
To: Jeroen van Aart
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Operation Ghost Click

wow, 1990 much? are you actually just trolling today perhaps?

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart  wrote:
> Livingood, Jason wrote:
>>
>> you may just have nuked their 911 capability.
>
>
> Depending on your internet connection to be able to dial 911 is a bit



> foolhardy, to put it nicely. It pays off to have a phone that's only powered
> through the phone line itself, for emergencies (and your everyday home phone
> calls *gasp*). Especially in a country where power outages are as frequent
> as full moons. The good old land line hardly ever goes down.

this is nice, but not everywhere has this capability, someplaces DID
have it until the new 'we bring fiber' people showed up, and clipped
the copper below the ground-level.

>
> And you may find the audio quality is better too. While you're at it, make
> it a rotary phone. :-)

wow, 1990 much? are you actually just trolling today perhaps?

> Regards,
> Jeroen
>
> --
> Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
> Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
> Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
> Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
> Depth: 10.00 km
>

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:13:56 -0700, Jeroen van Aart said:
> Livingood, Jason wrote:
> > you may just have nuked their 911 capability.

Actually, I said that, not Jason.  Jason just used mail software that *can't get
quoting right* to reply to my message, so your quote of his message got the
attribution wrong.

What *is* it with you people? This is *NANOG*. In *2012*. ;)

(The truly sad part is that based on the User-Agent: headers, Jason appears to
have used a *different* broken mail software package than the last person.  So
at least 2 vendors are doing stupid stuff.)

 ;)

> Depending on your internet connection to be able to dial 911 is a bit
> foolhardy, to put it nicely.

Foolhardy or not, it's probably unwise for an ISP to say "It's OK, *nobody* 
would
be that foolhardy" and snip the service...


pgpF5Ez49jDcz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Jeroen van Aart]

Livingood, Jason wrote:

you may just have nuked their 911 capability.


Depending on your internet connection to be able to dial 911 is a bit 
foolhardy, to put it nicely. It pays off to have a phone that's only 
powered through the phone line itself, for emergencies (and your 
everyday home phone calls *gasp*). Especially in a country where power 
outages are as frequent as full moons. The good old land line hardly 
ever goes down.


And you may find the audio quality is better too. While you're at it, 
make it a rotary phone. :-)


Regards,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Wednesday, May  2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region
Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861
Depth: 10.00 km

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Nicolai]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:14:40PM -0500, A. Pishdadi wrote:
> At some point in like 10 years when all the computer illiterate people are
> gone there will be no more excuses for not being educated on malware and
> viruses.

The "non-techies" I know would consider switching from IE to Firefox a
major change, one they think would qualify as a technical achievement.
If you ask people about the underlying technical aspects of the software
or hardware they use, most will know very little, if anything.  Some
won't even understand the question.

On a weirdly related note, here's a story from a friend of mine who is a
high school teacher.  He told me once that a significant number of his
students believe that the *original source* of food is a grocery store.
Not a farm, but the food literally comes into being on a shelf in the
produce section or meat counter.

It all comes down to a lack of interest in what's going on under the
hood, and this disinterest won't be gone in 10, 20, or 50 years.  It's
actually deepening as time goes on.

Nicolai

NANOG 55 DNS Track

[Mehmet Akcin]

Hello everyone,

NANOG 55 will take place in Vancouver , Canada June 3-6 , 2012. I will send 
more information about DNS Track timing and details of the track later.

I am sending this email to ask NANOG attendees to help us organize a better 
track by letting us know what topics they want to see covered about DNS.

We are also inviting parties who are DNS Software providers,  service 
providers, experts, and researchers to join and present about what they think 
is interesting. Please contact me directly if you want to briefly bring 
something interesting about DNS to this Track's and their attendees attention. 

Since the whole track will be 90mins and we want to allow as much as talks to 
take a place it would be good idea to limit any specific talk to 15 mins and 
keeping it really operational , brief and clear would be great idea.

as I said earlier as soon as track details are decided,  I will send a second 
e-mail to let the community know. thank you for your interest.

mehmet

Re: Operation Ghost Click

[Livingood, Jason]

>Hey Jason, I'm going to put you on the spot with a crazy idea.
>
>Many customers of the major internet providers also have other
>services from them, like TV and Phone.  Perhaps expanding the notice
>to those areas would be useful?  Turn on your cable box and get a
>notice, or pick up the phone and get a notice?

We did the phone thing by dropping a voicemail to our voice customers (it
is IP voicemail so it kind of looks like an email server architecture).

Good idea on the TV notification as well and certainly not crazy! ;-)

- Jason

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On May 2, 2012, at 1:06, Aleksi Suhonen  wrote:

> I have no idea what's really going on at LLNW, but I thought I'd still share 
> an alternative view on this matter:
> 
> My understanding is that LLNW is spending tons of money to upgrade some of 
> their IXP connections to 100GbE in Europe. With that in mind, I'm not that 
> surprised if they wish to get some new income to cover those costs. While 
> content is king, eye balls are kings too. Go figure.

Lots of networks upgrade their infrastructure.  It means they are doing more 
traffic, which hopefully means their business is doing well.  Very few - in 
fact, I can't think of a single network - start asking for paid peering just 
because they are upgrading their ports.  Networks either ask for paid peering, 
or don't, irrespective of their IX upgrade schedule.  It is based on whether 
they think they have power over their peers.  I guess we know how LLNW feels 
now.

The interesting thing to me is the reversal from previous years.  Most content 
providers have issues with eyeball networks saying "pay me for bits".  Content 
networks have historically claimed this is silly of the eyeball networks - 
including LLNW.  Eyeballs get paid by their customers (DSL, cable, whatever) to 
"reach the Internet".  Content networks pay to bring the content right to the 
eyeball's door.  Or so the theory goes.

This move belies that argument LLNW has made themselves in the past.   It is 
not about "your customer pays you, my customer pays me."  It is about who can 
force whom to pay (or not, as most people who have spoken up said they would 
not pay).

End of day, this doesn't change the way of the world.  LLNW is a big network, 
but compared to the whole Internet, they are relatively small.  There will be 
corner cases like this, and the market will decide who wins & who loses.  


-- 
TTFN,
patrick

RE: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

[Leigh Porter]

> I (in the UK) had the same letter from LLNW yesterday, word for word.

Me too.

> However I must say that the wording of their letter is appalling

Agreed.
 
> I am glad they are spending ton of money to upgrade their
> infrastructure.. but so am I.

Slightly odd though that they are upgrading their network and then de-peering 
everybody who takes < 1Gb/s from them.
I don't quite understand why a content DELIVERY network would want to do this.

I'm not sure who's content they deliver but this does not seem like a 
particularly great way to go about delivering it. 

There was a network who commented earlier in the thread that they do 600Mb/s 
with them, that's not an insignificant level of traffic really, especially 
coming from a single CDN. I wonder if this not some slightly mis-informed exec 
at LLNW who thought they found a great way to extract more money to deliver 
content that they have already been paid to deliver.

--
Leigh


__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

[Thomas Mangin]

I (in the UK) had the same letter from LLNW yesterday, word for word. 

When the peering was established, I had transit providers with strict peering 
policy (TATA/L3), now I have two with more open policy (HE/KPN). I assume LLNW 
now sees me via what is for them a peer, and see no financial reason to keep a 
direct session up.

However I must say that the wording of their letter is appalling. Even if they 
gave me 30 days notice to change my transit arrangement and did not terminate 
the session without warning, the tone of this mail is simply wrong. I am pretty 
sure my transit providers are seeing them via the same exchanges I do, so the 
traffic did, most likely, not even shift from interface. We did not have any 
issues of capacity and/or outage, so it is not that this change will save them 
much in opex costs neither. My peering ports are the same size as my transit 
ports, so they have gained anything in performance by shifting the traffic (and 
as I do not congest, did not loose anything neither though)

What it tells me is that they do not care about my business and prefer to force 
me to pay to reach their network (more than I was previously) via transit ... 
or pay more but less than transit using their "generous" pay peering offer .. I 
did not bother asking them what the cost was, my answer is NO. I will prefer to 
pay my transit provider, at least the extra capacity can be put to other use.

If ever I change back my transit provider to one they do not have favourable 
agreement with, I will think twice about peering again with them, or I may ask 
them for some pay peering to reflect their saving (no, I would not I am not 
that kind of scumbag).

As my traffic volume is clearly noise for them, I am sure they do not care at 
all. However, large rivers are all made of small streams, and all trees starts 
as seeds ( I am feeling zen this morning ... :D )

Thomas

I am glad they are spending ton of money to upgrade their infrastructure.. but 
so am I.

On 2 May 2012, at 06:06, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:

> Morning,
> 
> I have no idea what's really going on at LLNW, but I thought I'd still share 
> an alternative view on this matter:
> 
> My understanding is that LLNW is spending tons of money to upgrade some of 
> their IXP connections to 100GbE in Europe. With that in mind, I'm not that 
> surprised if they wish to get some new income to cover those costs. While 
> content is king, eye balls are kings too. Go figure.
> 
> -- 
>Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy
>Internetworking Consulting
>Cellular: +358 45 670 2048
>World Wide Web: www.axu.tm
> 

Re: IPv6 monitoring...

[Stig Sandbeck Mathisen]

Vytautas V Grigaliunas  writes:

> What are people using for IPv6 monitoring - in particular, for
> monitoring services such as DNS, Web, E-mail, etc. ?
>
> Nagios seems the people's choice. Any others...open source or
> commercial ?

Open source Icinga and Nagios would work fine, and the configurations
should be (mostly) interchangable, with a notable exception.

Icinga's host object type has an "address6" paramter, which Nagios does
not have. For Nagios, a patch is available in http://goo.gl/IHkKE

https://www.icinga.org/2011/07/21/how-to-dual-stack-1pv4-ipv6-monitoring-with-icinga/
shows one way of doing dual stack monitoring of a single service, using
the "check_multi" monitoring plugin.

-- 
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen