Re: question about bgp incremental updates
On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Song Li refresh.ls...@gmail.com wrote: According to this principle, if an AS suddenly announced a lot of updates (as below), can it be regarded as an anomaly such as BGP session reset? Yes. It's wise to monitor BGP announcements received from peers, and to investigate when large numbers of announcements or withdrawals take place simultaneously. I wish to know if there are other reasons can result in this anomaly. Human error, deliberate disaggregation for traffic-engineering purposes, accidental or deliberate hijacking, turning up new peering links, et. al. can result in sudden flurries of route announcements/withdrawals. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
- Original Message - On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month for a gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was consumer pricing the assertion? I think Owen's pricing is based on 10Gbps router ports (Owen, correct me if I'm wrong). This is not the only way to sell 10Gbps services. Having said that, in context of home broadband, I was referring to AN's (Access Nodes), particularly based on Active-E (you don't generally place consumer customers directly on to 10Gbps router ports). The 10Gbps ports on an Active-E AN are in the same 1U chassis as the 44x Gig-E ports. And depending on how many you buy from vendors for your Access network, you can get pretty decent deals with good return if you get great uptake and have a sweet price point. That's the assertion Mark made, right there: that you could hook 44 GigE's to 4 10G's, and get pretty decent deals. Specifically, Mark said (at top of thread): If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home (either on copper or fibre) with little to no uplink oversubscription (think 44x customer-facing Gig-E ports + 4x 10Gbps uplink ports), essentially, there is no limit to what services a provider and its partners can offer to its customers. So that implies he really did mean 44x GigE to end-prem, from 4 $5500 10G ports -- or, $500/home in MRC *cost* to the provider. I'm confused. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be prohibited from playing at the higher layers. Owen has some really good points here, but may be overstating his case a smidge. [...] Municipalities can be different. It’s possible to write into law that they can offer L1 and L2 services, but never anything higher. There’s also a built in disincentive to risk tax dollars more speculative, but possibly more profitable ventures. Hi Leo, I can think of issues that arise when the municipality provides layer 2 services. 1. Enthusiasm (hence funding) for public works projects waxes and wanes. Generally it waxes long enough to get some portion of the original works project built, then it wanes until the project is in major disrepair, then it waxes again long enough to more or less fix it up. Acting as a layer-2 service provider will tend to exacerbate this effect. Let's all build gig-e to the homes! Great. And in 10 years when gige is passe there won't be any money for the 10 gig upgrade but the municipality will still have 20 years to go on the 30 year bond they floated to pay for the gige deployment. And no money for the equipment that corrects the IPv6 glitchiness or supports the brand new LocalVideoProtocol which would allow ultra high def super interactive television or whatever the rage is 10 year out. Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit service you can come up with today does. 2. It is in government's nature to expand. New big city service not arriving fast enough? We'll do it ourselves! Dear county commissioners, it'll only take a little bit of money (to do it badly), come on approve it, let's do it. You know you want it. I can also see how some longer-distance links, imagine a link from home to office across 30-40 miles, might be cheaper to deliver as 100M VLAN than raw dark fiber and having to buy long reach optics. Long-reach optics are relatively cheap, or at least they can be if you optimize for expense. The better example is when you want ISP #1, phone company #2, TV service #3, data warehouse service #4, etc. With a lit service, you only have to buy the last-mile component once. I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a line. Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus providing services and out-system communications. With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution. No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing and normal access control filters available in even the cheap equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs) over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement any special configurations in their network to serve them. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit service you can come up with today does. Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when that claim could have been made about copper. I would not make that claim about copper today (or even 10 years ago). I can also see how some longer-distance links, imagine a link from home to office across 30-40 miles, might be cheaper to deliver as 100M VLAN than raw dark fiber and having to buy long reach optics. Long-reach optics are relatively cheap, or at least they can be if you optimize for expense. The better example is when you want ISP #1, phone company #2, TV service #3, data warehouse service #4, etc. With a lit service, you only have to buy the last-mile component once. In such a case, is there a reason you couldn't use the optics from ISP#1 as lit service to reach PhoneCo #2, TV-Co #3, and Warehouse #4 if that was desirable? Surely at least one of the 4 could provide optics and a convenient layer 2 handoff for the other services at least as easily and cost-effectively as L2 service from the L1 fiber provider. I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a line. Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus providing services and out-system communications. I think the best line to draw is between passive facilities and active components. If it consumes electricity, regardless of power source, it shouldn't be part of the facilities network provider's purview with the possible exception of technology-agnostic amplifiers, which should be avoided whenever possible. With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution. No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing and normal access control filters available in even the cheap equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs) over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement any special configurations in their network to serve them. In an already-sunk equipment cost environment, this might be a necessary tradeoff. In a greenfield deployment, there's no reason whatsoever not to use IPv6 GUA in place of RFC-1918 with the added advantage that you are not limited to ~17 million managed entries per management domain. Even ULA would be a better (albeit nearly as bad) choice than RFC-1918. Hmmm... Can one run 802.1q over GRE? (Too lazy to look that one up at the moment). Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a line. Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus providing services and out-system communications. I think the best line to draw is between passive facilities and active components. Hi Owen, You've convinced me. However, I think it's still worth talking about where you draw the second line -- if the infrastructure provider implements a network with active components and some kind of digital data passing protocol, what should the scope of that capability be limited to? With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution. No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing and normal access control filters available in even the cheap equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs) over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement any special configurations in their network to serve them. In an already-sunk equipment cost environment, this might be a necessary tradeoff. In a greenfield deployment, there's no reason whatsoever not to use IPv6 GUA in place of RFC-1918 with the added advantage that you are not limited to ~17 million managed entries per management domain. Cost and availability of tools, equipment and personnel still strongly favors IPv4. Presumably that will eventually change, but it won't change for the equipment you can purchase today. The only point of providing lit service is to suppress the initial consumer-level cost, so let's not suggest choices that increase it. If the local infrastructure provider has a million customers in a single domain, it is too large to have implemented itself cost-effectively (they'll be using the super-expensive high-capacity low-production-run core equipment) and is straying into that undesirable territory where the infrastructure provider becomes a general service provider. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
RE: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the solid optics power meter is just rebranded PPI? Also what about a decent but reasonably priced OSA? Suggestions? Tim Kaufman -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Walter Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. We also have a Solid Optics CWDM meter and it does the job quite nicely. It feels solid (haha...) and is relatively cheap. -- Jeff Walter On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Neil Davidson n...@knd.org wrote: We have the Solid Optics DWDM and CWDM power meters. Simple, inexpensive and works well ... http://www.solid-optics.com/category/cwdm-dwdm/power-meter ... n -- K. Neil Davidson +1-720-258-6345 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hill t...@ninjabadger.net wrote: On 28/07/14 19:33, Timothy Kaufman wrote: Also maybe the ODPM-48. I've got the CWDM version of this, and it does the job. Haven't explored the test result downloading/archiving features (didn't expect them to work with Linux anyway) but overall it was very helpful for measuring loss across various passive muxes (where DDM wasn't available). Tom
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Owen DeLong wrote: Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit service you can come up with today does. Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when that claim could have been made about copper. I would not make that claim about copper today (or even 10 years ago). Assuming the rodents don't eat your fiber. Miles Fidelman
Huawei Atom Router
Has anyone seen/touched Huawei's Atom Router? It was announced at the Mobile World Congress 2014.. haven't seen anything on the Interweb since. I'd be interested in getting one or two units to play in my lab! http://www.huawei.com/mwc2014/en/articles/hw-328011.htm Eric
Re: Huawei Atom Router
Well, Wasn't the Huawei CEO that stated that they where not interested into the US market. ( And by proxy ... the Canadian one ) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/23/huawei_not_interested_in_us/ And a bunch of ban's around Oct 2013 from a wide variety of countries... That's maybe why not many people are talking about their products in our corner of the world =D - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 08/04/14 15:56, Eric Dugas wrote: Has anyone seen/touched Huawei's Atom Router? It was announced at the Mobile World Congress 2014.. haven't seen anything on the Interweb since. I'd be interested in getting one or two units to play in my lab! http://www.huawei.com/mwc2014/en/articles/hw-328011.htm Eric
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer). To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it at whatever speeds they like between two points. The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on the prices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under control by regulation. Eugeniu
Re: question about bgp incremental updates
Hi, I can think of two reasons for such behavior: - one of the attributes of these routes changed suddenly, so they have been reannounced by your peer, - you sent a 'route refresh' request to this peer, asking him to reannounce all his table. Other than that, I don't see why a peer would resend lots of already-announced prefixes.. cheers, Mateusz On 08/04/2014 04:29 AM, Song Li wrote: Hi everyone, I have a question about bgp updates: BGP uses an incremental update strategy to conserve bandwidth and processing power. That is, after initial exchange of complete routing information, a pair of BGP routers exchanges only the changes to that information. ( from RFC4274) According to this principle, if an AS suddenly announced a lot of updates (as below), can it be regarded as an anomaly such as BGP session reset? I wish to know if there are other reasons can result in this anomaly. Thanks! BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.24.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.28.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.16.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.20.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.16.0/20|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.12.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.12.0/22|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.204.0/23|6939 4436 25973 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.208.0/21|6939 4436 25973 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.8.0/24|6939 4436 25973 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.1.32.0/20|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.204.0/23|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.208.0/21|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.24.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.28.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.16.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.20.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.16.0/20|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.12.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.12.0/22|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|218.189.8.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.1.32.0/20|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|114.134.83.0/24|6939 3549 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|203.90.243.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|203.90.251.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|118.143.224.0/20|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|118.143.232.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.57.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.53.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.61.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.49.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|103.17.240.0/22|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|103.17.240.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:12|A|216.218.252.164|6939|112.73.6.0/23|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|118.194.231.0/24|6939 3549 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|175.100.198.0/24|6939 3549 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|175.100.206.0/24|6939 15412 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|210.0.209.0/24|6939 4436 25973 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|210.3.0.0/22|6939 4436 25973 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|210.3.4.0/23|6939 4436 25973 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|103.227.207.0/24|6939 1299 3257 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|114.134.83.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|203.90.243.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|203.90.251.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|118.143.224.0/20|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|118.143.232.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.57.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.53.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14 13:05:13|A|216.218.252.164|6939|202.46.61.0/24|6939 9304|IGP BGP4MP|04/23/14
Re: Netflix And ATT Sign Peering Agreement
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and Verizon. http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt Netflix agrees to buy transit from ATT? As several people were kind enough to point out to me off-list, yes is the answer to that question. Thanks Jay. Can you put it in a nutshell just in case others are a little vague on the finer points of these arrangements and their significance in the current content provider / network provider row? The best thing about journalists is that they're always right (unless they're writing about something you know about, in which case they seem to always screw it up.) I like how in this case the author declares that This is the new normal. Marcus
Re: Huawei Atom Router
Huawei has sales personal in the US and does sell here. See http://huawei.com/us/about-huawei/contact-us/index.htm And for a more recent Huawei management statement, see http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-04/28/content_17470474.htm Huawei executive says it still seeks US sales Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net wrote: Well, Wasn't the Huawei CEO that stated that they where not interested into the US market. ( And by proxy ... the Canadian one ) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/23/huawei_not_interested_in_us/ And a bunch of ban's around Oct 2013 from a wide variety of countries... That's maybe why not many people are talking about their products in our corner of the world =D - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 08/04/14 15:56, Eric Dugas wrote: Has anyone seen/touched Huawei's Atom Router? It was announced at the Mobile World Congress 2014.. haven't seen anything on the Interweb since. I'd be interested in getting one or two units to play in my lab! http://www.huawei.com/mwc2014/en/articles/hw-328011.htm Eric
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
- Original Message - From: Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer). To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it at whatever speeds they like between two points. The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on the prices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under control by regulation. This one is a bad idea cause you have lots of people pushing fiber through pipes with active fiber in them... and their incentives not to screw up other people's glass are... unclear? :-) Oh, wait: the conduit installer isn't a contractor, they're a monopoly? No, that's even worse. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
- Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us I can think of issues that arise when the municipality provides layer 2 services. 1. Enthusiasm (hence funding) for public works projects waxes and wanes. Generally it waxes long enough to get some portion of the original works project built, then it wanes until the project is in major disrepair, then it waxes again long enough to more or less fix it up. Acting as a layer-2 service provider will tend to exacerbate this effect. Let's all build gig-e to the homes! Great. And in 10 years when gige is passe there won't be any money for the 10 gig upgrade but the municipality will still have 20 years to go on the 30 year bond they floated to pay for the gige deployment. And no money for the equipment that corrects the IPv6 glitchiness or supports the brand new LocalVideoProtocol which would allow ultra high def super interactive television or whatever the rage is 10 year out. You have forgotten here, Bill (I am feeling charitable, so I will not add ... no, I said I wouldn't add it) MRC. Unlike some things for which bonds would be floated, this sort of service *would be being charged to someone, every month*. Sure, you won't get 100% take, but we factor that in. And, the number of times it's been said notwithstanding, I think a resaonably defensible case can be made that consumer services are pretty close to as good as they need to be at this point; for the *average* consumer, you're pretty hard pressed to run out of space on GigE downhill; uphill even moreso. Sure, there are edge cases, but we call them that for a reason. Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit service you can come up with today does. Stipulated. 2. It is in government's nature to expand. New big city service not arriving fast enough? We'll do it ourselves! Dear county commissioners, it'll only take a little bit of money (to do it badly), come on approve it, let's do it. You know you want it. Was there an argument there? I can also see how some longer-distance links, imagine a link from home to office across 30-40 miles, might be cheaper to deliver as 100M VLAN than raw dark fiber and having to buy long reach optics. Long-reach optics are relatively cheap, or at least they can be if you optimize for expense. The better example is when you want ISP #1, phone company #2, TV service #3, data warehouse service #4, etc. With a lit service, you only have to buy the last-mile component once. That sounds like an argument in *favor* of the Muni providing backstop service at L2, rather than the position against I thought you took. I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a line. Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus providing services and out-system communications. Ah. Then we *are* singing the same song, or most of it. With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution. No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing and normal access control filters available in even the cheap equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs) over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement any special configurations in their network to serve them. Hmmm. This isn't the view I'd been getting from you on this, I don't believe. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:27 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a line. Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus providing services and out-system communications. I think the best line to draw is between passive facilities and active components. Hi Owen, You've convinced me. However, I think it's still worth talking about where you draw the second line -- if the infrastructure provider implements a network with active components and some kind of digital data passing protocol, what should the scope of that capability be limited to? I would think that is only acceptable if they are REQUIRED to provide bare-bones passive L1 services wherever possible. (with the possible exception of amplifiers which you deleted from my previous message). With a multi-service provider network there are, IMO, major advantages to implementing it with private-IP IPv4 instead of a layer 2 solution. No complicated vlans, PPoE or gpon channels. Just normal IP routing and normal access control filters available in even the cheap equipment. Then run your various virtual wire technologies (e.g. VPNs) over the IP network. Everybody is a peer on the network, so the infrastructure provider doesn't need to know anything about customer-service provider relationships and doesn't need to implement any special configurations in their network to serve them. In an already-sunk equipment cost environment, this might be a necessary tradeoff. In a greenfield deployment, there's no reason whatsoever not to use IPv6 GUA in place of RFC-1918 with the added advantage that you are not limited to ~17 million managed entries per management domain. Cost and availability of tools, equipment and personnel still strongly favors IPv4. Presumably that will eventually change, but it won't change for the equipment you can purchase today. The only point of providing lit service is to suppress the initial consumer-level cost, so let's not suggest choices that increase it. IPv6 capable tools do not cost more than IPv4 capable tools these days, so cost does not favor IPv4. As to availability, to some minor extent, but that is a matter of demand. If we make IPv6 a requirement in such circumstances, I guarantee you that availability for IPv6 capable tools will improve rapidly. I don’t believe that greenfield lit consumer service will reduce cost anyway. Further, putting anything in the network today that is not IPv6 capable does actually increase costs. Maybe not this week or even this year, but almost certainly in less than 3-5 years at this point. At current growth rates, IPv6 will service more end users than IPv4 by the end of 2016. If the local infrastructure provider has a million customers in a single domain, it is too large to have implemented itself cost-effectively (they'll be using the super-expensive high-capacity low-production-run core equipment) and is straying into that undesirable territory where the infrastructure provider becomes a general service provider. A management domain may span multiple service delivery domains. It may be that a provider which consists of many small service delivery domains wants to manage them as a single domain rather than running some sort of split-brained set of management domains. Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit service you can come up with today does. Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when that claim could have been made about copper. I would not make that claim about copper today (or even 10 years ago). Assuming the rodents don't eat your fiber. Miles Fidelman Most burried fiber is pretty rodent resistant these days. Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer). To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it at whatever speeds they like between two points. The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on the prices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under control by regulation. As long as the price is regulated at a reasonable level and is available on equal footing to all comers, that’s about as good as it will get whether run by private enterprise or by the city itself. Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly and effectively. I'm a fan of either: Dark fibre to every house. Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP. All ran by an entity forbidden from retail. Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISPs (reduced labour to connect user, reduced maintenance) and dark fibre for others (reduced costs, increased control). On 5 Aug 2014 14:11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer). To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it at whatever speeds they like between two points. The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on the prices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under control by regulation. As long as the price is regulated at a reasonable level and is available on equal footing to all comers, that’s about as good as it will get whether run by private enterprise or by the city itself. Owen
Re: Netflix And ATT Sign Peering Agreement
Gah, While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, ATT shouldn't be charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s. Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides, when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major PoP. I'd not see them, or ISPs in other remote areas, charging for transit. On 5 Aug 2014 10:57, Marcus Reid mar...@blazingdot.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and Verizon. http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt Netflix agrees to buy transit from ATT? As several people were kind enough to point out to me off-list, yes is the answer to that question. Thanks Jay. Can you put it in a nutshell just in case others are a little vague on the finer points of these arrangements and their significance in the current content provider / network provider row? The best thing about journalists is that they're always right (unless they're writing about something you know about, in which case they seem to always screw it up.) I like how in this case the author declares that This is the new normal. Marcus
