Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
>How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing. This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png "Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct > me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With > Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the > background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but > here goes anyway... > > >A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had > thought > >to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network > >providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry > yours > >and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under > >modern realities. > > I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying > it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet". > > Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes > settlement-free peering viable: > "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was > sending to the other was roughly equivalent." > > ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix > needs to buck up: > "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge > amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with > sufficient quality." > > But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge > network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to > Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything > more nuanced here than: > > 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network > according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong > here; oversubscription is a fact of life). > 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. > 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and > suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. > 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the > heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their > customers' usage. > > How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more > traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have > capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add > ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing > something? > > Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards > double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open > Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage > their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's > line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting > here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering > the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems > that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real > recourse while that plays out. > > -- > Hugo > > > From: NANOG on behalf of Larry Sheldon < > larryshel...@cox.net> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could > enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post > > h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian > > FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality > > http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/ > > Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! > -- > Requiescas in pace o email
What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access it again. I do not know if this provision would also include prohibiting intentionally throttling traffic on a home by home basis (#2) and holding services to the same kind of random is also prohibited but I think this too would be a far practice to prohibit. Bits are bits. >From the routers article ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-internet-idUSBREA3M1H020140423) and elsewhere it seems what the proposal does not outlaw is paid peering and perhaps use of QoS on networks. #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Clearly it would not be fair to for only the largest content providers to be legally mandated as settlement free peers because that would leave smaller competitors out in the cold. The only fair way to outlaw paid peering would be to do it across the board for all companies big and small. This would be everyone from major content providers to my uncle to sells hand runs a website to sell hand crafted chairs. This would have major sweeping repercussions for the Internet as we know it over night. I think it makes sense to allow companies to work it out as long as the prices charged aren't unreasonably high based on market prices for data. This means if 2 ISP's with similar networks want to be settlement free they can. If ISP's want to charge for transit they can, and if ISP's want to charge CDN's to deliver data they can. Typically the company with the disproportional amount of costs of carrying the traffic would charge the other company but really it should be up to the companies involved to decide. Based on the post by Tom Wheeler from the FCC ( http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules ) it sounds like if this pricing is "commercially unreasonable" (ie extortion) they will step in. Again I think this is fair. #4 On QoS (ie fast lane?): In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and classification marking that would really only become a factor under instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and journalists all seems to be unanimously opposed to this but I admit I am sort of scratching my head at the outrage over something that has been in prevalent use on many major networks for several years. I don't see this as the end of the Internet as we know it that now seems to essentially be popular opinion on the issue. Numerous businesses are using QoS to protect things like voice traffic and business critical or emergency traffic from being impacted in a failure scenario. In modern day hyper converged networks where pretty soon even mobile voice traffic could be VoIP over a data network prohibiting the use of all QoS seems irresponsible. The larger question is, is it fair for ISP's to charge people to be in a priority other than "best effort"? To answer a question with a question, if an ISP is using a priority other than "best effort" for some of its own traffic is it fair if a peer with a competing service is only best effort delivery? This is sort of akin to Comcast not counting its own video service against the ~250G/month cap of subscribers but counting off network traffic against it. In theory if some of an ISP's own services are able to use higher than best effort priority the same should be available to the business they are selling service to. If they go completely out of their way to intentionally congest the network to force people into needing a higher than best effort classification I would think it should fall into what the FCC calls "commercially unreasonable" and thus be considered a violation. So again, I think this is fair. I have numbered the items I mentioned from 1-4 being #1. Blocking #2. per household (last mile) rate limiting of a service (though rate limiting at all anywhere should probably be up for discussion so #2.5) #3. The legality of paid peering #4. The legality of QoS (unless fast lane is something else I don't understand). Feel free to augment the list.
RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway... >A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought >to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network >providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours >and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under >modern realities. I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet". Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent." ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality." But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than: 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage. How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out. -- Hugo From: NANOG on behalf of Larry Sheldon Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
On 4/26/14, 7:00 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i am an occasional engineer. i find the recent gl1tz!ficat!on of nanog, > the mass of committees and important positions, ... disgusting. Some people would call that community participation. Perhaps a side effect of the split from merit and nanog's continuing evolution?
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
On 4/26/2014 8:56 PM, James R Cutler wrote: To an engineer, that _IS_ attractive. Amen. Also to engineer wannabees. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
> DNS is Sexy, y'all know it. no wonder dns geeks seem to have a low birth rate
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
jim, > To an engineer, that _IS_ attractive. i am an occasional engineer. i find the recent gl1tz!ficat!on of nanog, the mass of committees and important positions, ... embarrassing. randy
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
jim, > To an engineer, that _IS_ attractive. i am an occasional engineer. i find the recent gl1tz!ficat!on of nanog, the mass of committees and important positions, ... disgusting. randy
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
DNS is Sexy, y'all know it. Mehmet > On Apr 26, 2014, at 18:56, James R Cutler wrote: > > Randy, > > To an engineer, that _IS_ attractive. > >Jim > > On Apr 26, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> I am trying to organize the DNS Track and as usual we would like to >>> make this very attractive. >> >> mehmet, i know you're an engineer. screw attractive. how about >> technically informative and meaty? >> >> randy >
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
Randy, To an engineer, that _IS_ attractive. Jim On Apr 26, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I am trying to organize the DNS Track and as usual we would like to >> make this very attractive. > > mehmet, i know you're an engineer. screw attractive. how about > technically informative and meaty? > > randy signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: NANOG 61 Bellevue - DNS Track
> I am trying to organize the DNS Track and as usual we would like to > make this very attractive. mehmet, i know you're an engineer. screw attractive. how about technically informative and meaty? randy
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/26/2014 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC internet services. There are no regulations that support that monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive permits, Wait! What? Like if I want to build a pipeline to compete with your friends railroad? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: Monopolies can not persist without regulation. This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome. Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable, twisted pair, fiber, etc. Sounds like the market at work, not monopoly power..I've never heard the term "monopoly" used where the market contains all the players that want to play. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: US patent 5473599
On 23/04/2014 17:47, Henning Brauer wrote: > fortunately this obviously isn't a big problem in practice, based on > the fact that we don't get any complaints/reports in that direction. > still would be way micer if that situation had been created in the > first place, but as said - we weren't given that choice. the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or iana. You squatted on an existing oui assignment used by an equivalent protocol and in doing this, you created a long term problem with no possible solution other than to change carp to use its own dedicated range instead of someone else's. You had every choice in the world about what range to use and even if you didn't have the $2500 at the time to register a perpetual OUI assignment, almost any other OUI in existence would have been less detrimental to users than the one you chose. The openbsd foundation raised $153,000 this year. Why not invest $2500 of this and fix the problem? Nick
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize. > >> Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does >> not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG >> doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty >> non-operational now. > > In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed > without regulation to protect its monopoly power. In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC internet services. There are no regulations that support that monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive permits, and build out a second cable system if they wanted to. However, the population density is such that even if that company captured 50% of the market, it would merely make the market economically unviable for both companies. In such instances, you do indeed have “natural monopolies” which are an economic construct, not a regulatory artifact. >> Besides, what has this to do with my original questions? > > Which were "Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have > monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?" and "How > is this good for the consumer?" and "How is this good for the market?" > > My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government > entities allowing and protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, I > prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is "Huh? > What?" and to the second and third "Best service for the best price is pretty > good for everybody. Except the losers that can't rip you off without the FCC > protection.” How, exactly, are the governments protecting the monopolies of ILECs and Cable companies? It seems to me that it’s more a case of those monopolies persisting because the non-regulatory (largely economic) barriers to competition are large enough that they prevent viable competitors from forming. Allowing those unregulated monopolies to subsequently leverage that into a “content protection racket” is the internet equivalent of turning a regulatory blind eye to more traditional forms of extortion. So, no, eliminating the government’s protection of monopolies (wherever you think that is occurring) will not solve the more general problem of monopolies that are a problem without government protection. Owen
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a >> monopoly. >> >> Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. >> (Capitalization is intentional.) >> >> Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite. >> > > Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition. > > Monopolies can not persist without regulation. This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome. Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable, twisted pair, fiber, etc. > A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to > monopolies by regulation. Yes, but an unregulated monopoly is a monopoly without constraints imposed by regulation. Owen
RE: The Cidr Report
> > Historic event - 500K prefixes on the Internet. > And now we wait for everything to fall over at 512k ;) Based on a quick plot graph on the CIDR report, it looks like we are adding 6,000 prefixes a month, or thereabouts. So platforms that break at 512K die in two months or less? Sup720s may need to be reconfigured/rebooted, etc. Does anyone have doomsday plots of IPv6 prefixes? We are already at something like 20,000 prefixes there, and a surprising number of deaggregates (like /64s) in the global table. IIRC, a bunch of platforms will fall over at 128K/256K IPv6 prefixes (but sooner, really, because of IPv4 dual stack). Best, Deepak
Re: The Cidr Report
Op 26 apr. 2014, om 20:05 heeft Hank Nussbacher het volgende geschreven: > At 22:00 25/04/2014 +, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: >> This report has been generated at Fri Apr 25 21:13:54 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. >> >> Recent Table History >>Date PrefixesCIDR Agg >>18-04-14499254 282312 >>19-04-14499492 282427 >>20-04-14499557 282428 >>21-04-14499371 282193 >>22-04-14499156 282325 >>23-04-14499260 282597 >>24-04-14499642 282663 >>25-04-14500177 282878 > > Historic event - 500K prefixes on the Internet. And now we wait for everything to fall over at 512k ;)
Re: The Cidr Report
At 22:00 25/04/2014 +, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: This report has been generated at Fri Apr 25 21:13:54 2014 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/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date PrefixesCIDR Agg 18-04-14499254 282312 19-04-14499492 282427 20-04-14499557 282428 21-04-14499371 282193 22-04-14499156 282325 23-04-14499260 282597 24-04-14499642 282663 25-04-14500177 282878 Historic event - 500K prefixes on the Internet. -Hank
Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig
I'm a big fan of the Terastream setup and have done a lot of research into it, it makes sense if the density and bandwidth needs are fairly low and the distances not so great. Terastream also makes use of a LOT of raw fiber which most do not really have access to. Right now only one router vendor supports 100G DWDM. We will soon see DWDM CFP available, although the density is going to be at best half what you'd get out of using CFP2/CPAK. I'm intrigued by Oclaro since they say they have already been able to do it in CFP2, and have an implementation to do 200G via a CFP2, albeit via proprietary modulation... DTAG has done a lot of work with various vendors for interoperable long-haul 100G which is important. Unfortunately many of the transport vendors are now focused on other things now like flexgrid, flex spectrum, MacPHY (variable rate Ethernet), superchannels, 400G, etc. It's important they be pointed in the "standards" direction for those things otherwise we will be left with lots of non-interoperable implementations like we have always had. -Phil On 4/26/14, 7:17 AM, "Tim Durack" wrote: >Will need amplification anyway for almost any realistic topology. > >For those who don't understand what or why, please read the Terastream PDF >and watch the video several times, then tell me it's not a great idea :-) > >On Saturday, April 26, 2014, Julien Goodwin >wrote: > >> On 26/04/14 16:02, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote: >> > >> >> But you'd never send it all the waves anyway, that's far too much >>loss >> >> across the band. >> > >> > Please elaborate. >> >> At 3dB loss per split you'd very quickly need additional amplification, >> at which point the ROADM is cheaper. A static split can do the 80 waves >> in much less than the ~20dB a power split would need, and >> >> > >> >> ROADMs already solve this problem, and are available at the module >>level >> >> (how practically available and usable I've no idea, never needed to >> try). >> > >> > Compare the price of a ROADM and a 50%/50% light splitter. Which one >>do >> > you think is the cheapest and also operationally most reliable? >> >> Not disagreeing, I'd go with dumb static optics, nearly all the >> "reconfigurable" optic selling points don't seem to translate into >> actual operational benefits. >> >> > >-- >Tim:>
Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig
Will need amplification anyway for almost any realistic topology. For those who don't understand what or why, please read the Terastream PDF and watch the video several times, then tell me it's not a great idea :-) On Saturday, April 26, 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote: > On 26/04/14 16:02, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote: > > > >> But you'd never send it all the waves anyway, that's far too much loss > >> across the band. > > > > Please elaborate. > > At 3dB loss per split you'd very quickly need additional amplification, > at which point the ROADM is cheaper. A static split can do the 80 waves > in much less than the ~20dB a power split would need, and > > > > >> ROADMs already solve this problem, and are available at the module level > >> (how practically available and usable I've no idea, never needed to > try). > > > > Compare the price of a ROADM and a 50%/50% light splitter. Which one do > > you think is the cheapest and also operationally most reliable? > > Not disagreeing, I'd go with dumb static optics, nearly all the > "reconfigurable" optic selling points don't seem to translate into > actual operational benefits. > > -- Tim:>
NANOG Mail Server Maintenance
Greetings, NANOG Mail Server Maintenance is now complete. Regards, Larry Blunk NANOG Communications Committee
