RE: bad announcement taxonomy

[Baker, Byrn]

Don't get on Kens bad side.



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Matlock
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:44 PM
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: bad announcement taxonomy

Origin NAT? ;)

Ken

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 11:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:21:32 -0600, David Edelman said:
>> How about Origin Obfuscation
> 
> Obfuscation implies intent.  Most leaks and mis-announcements don't 
> have intent because they're whoopsies.

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

[t...@pelican.org]

On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch"  said:

> Did someone say NAT?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8

Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon!  You, sir, win the Internet for 
today.

Regards,
Tim.

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

[Jared Mauch]

Did someone say NAT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8

- Jared

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Baker, Byrn  wrote:
> 
> Don't get on Kens bad side.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Matlock
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:44 PM
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: bad announcement taxonomy
> 
> Origin NAT? ;)
> 
> Ken
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 11:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:21:32 -0600, David Edelman said:
>>> How about Origin Obfuscation
>> 
>> Obfuscation implies intent.  Most leaks and mis-announcements don't 
>> have intent because they're whoopsies.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Christopher Morrow]

(CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION  - just a swag)

isn't this just moving content to v6 and/or behind the great-nat-of-tmo?

'reduce our need for NAT infra and incent customers to stop using NAT
requiring services' ?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Shane Ronan  wrote:
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he
> said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>
>
>
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> According to:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>>
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
>> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
>> is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
>> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
>> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
>> of place *for free*?
>>
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> According to:
>
>   
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Steve Mikulasik]

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way. 


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers 
for inclusion in Binge On.

"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to 
access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
> Binge On is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
> pride of place *for free*?
>
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Steve Mikulasik]

That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
wrote this understands what UDP is.

"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
video streams from that content provider"


-Original Message-
From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan 
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way. 


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers 
for inclusion in Binge On.

"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to 
access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
> on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
> Binge On is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
> pride of place *for free*?
>
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Shane Ronan]

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content 
providers for inclusion in Binge On.


"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the 
fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers 
don't pay to access it."

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

According to:

   
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/

Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

And I just said the same thing two different ways.

Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
of place *for free*?

Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
the goodness of their hearts.

Cheers,
-- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jay Ashworth]

According to:

  
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/

Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content 
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart 
YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

And I just said the same thing two different ways.

Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
of place *for free*?

Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
the goodness of their hearts.

Cheers,
-- jr 'whacky weekend' a
-- 
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: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Josh Reynolds]

I believe there may be a catch though: I don't think they can pick and
choose which streaming providers they allow their customers to stream
for free. As long as their streaming program is a "catch-all" for
streaming video, they can claim they are doing what they can (within
reason) to exempt streaming video from their data caps and are
probably fine with the FCC. For instance, using the "streaming video"
filter in Procera or a similar DPI product.

If it is found they are picking and choosing which content is free
(intentionally) they might be in trouble for that part.

They are not paying for this feature with the content providers (no
paid prioritization) and it's good for consumers. It probably sucks
for WISPs until those cell sectors start getting filled up though ;)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Shane Ronan  wrote:
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he
> said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>
>
>
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> According to:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>>
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
>> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
>> is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
>> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
>> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
>> of place *for free*?
>>
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Michael Thomas]

On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote:

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

According to:

   
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/

Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.



Why do you need certification? I doubt many people have a problem with 
qos marking,

but "certification" sort of gives me the creeps.

Mike

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Brim" 

> What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
> is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
> cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
> also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
> certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane. If this is all
> true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
> definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.

Izzat so.

If that's true, then more power to them.  I hadn't seen that deep a dive
in any of the coverage I'd read.

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: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Clay Curtis]

This is just the start.  Providers will push the limits slowly and will
eventually get to where they want to be.  t-mob is doing this in such a way
that consumer's will not object.  When the general public doesn't object
(because they are getting "free" data) that makes it a lot easier for the
FCC to look past the fact that this is a violation of basic net
neutrality.  Reminds me of the boiling frog analogy (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).

Clay

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:

> It's not. And that's the point.
>
> This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
> are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
> harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
> compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
> competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
> service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
> no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
> freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
> application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
> slows growth.
>
> Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
> (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
> application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
>
> Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM:
>
>> How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is
>> done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that
>> would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was
>> often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the
>> speed.
>>
>> In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In
>> an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is
>> done over those 3G and satellite connections?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson  wrote:
>>
>>> Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and
>>> video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is
>>> intended
>>> to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new
>>> (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches
>>> streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in
>>> these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields -
>>> medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the
>>> sum
>>> affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a
>>> whole,
>>> the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.
>>>
>>
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Joly MacFie]

​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I
missing?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:

> It's not. And that's the point.
>
> This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
> are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
> harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
> compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
> competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
> service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
> no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
> freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
> application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
> slows growth.
>
> Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
> (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
> application bandwidth caps) is desirable.

-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--
-

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

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

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

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

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

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 21 Nov, 2015

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

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  571013
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  212430
Deaggregation factor:  2.69
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  279150
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52060
Prefixes per ASN: 10.97
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   36697
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15985
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:6347
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:166
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  50
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55644)  41
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1045
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 377
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  11786
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:9016
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   34268
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:14
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:431
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2798739168
Equivalent to 166 /8s, 209 /16s and 94 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   75.6
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   75.6
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   97.8
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  187607

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   145397
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   40151
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.62
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  153613
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:61752
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5117
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   30.02
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1200
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:884
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.4
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 50
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   1718
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  755568544
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 9 /16s and 15 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.3

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:180528
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:88974
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.03
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   183890
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 87194
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:16512

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Blake Hudson]

Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and 
video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is 
intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but 
also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply 
entrenches streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to 
operators in these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in 
other fields - medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. 
I believe the sum affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the 
internet as a whole, the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Blake Hudson]

It's not. And that's the point.

This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there 
are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes 
harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators 
compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net 
Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less 
competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take 
the service. Because few people use the application, the network 
operator has no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we 
just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network 
doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. 
It's circular and it slows growth.


Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application 
(bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per 
application bandwidth caps) is desirable.


Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM:

How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is
done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that
would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was
often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the
speed.

In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In
an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is
done over those 3G and satellite connections?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson  wrote:

Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and
video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is intended
to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new
(possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches
streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in
these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields -
medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the sum
affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a whole,
the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Lyle Giese]

It leaves more data available to use within your data plan, but may 
reduce bandwidth available to you to actually use.  In other words, you 
may find your billed usage unusable due to lack of usable bandwidth.


'Oh it's free, I will set my phone to stream all Monty Python movies 
continuously.'


But I think this answer is more in line with the intent of your 
question, why would someone want to try to startup a new service that 
doesn't fit within the guidelines of these 'free' services.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 11/20/2015 12:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:

​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I
missing?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:


It's not. And that's the point.

This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
slows growth.

Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
(bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
application bandwidth caps) is desirable.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing.

Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty 
reasonable.

Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. 
In fact, it looks to me
like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness 
to expend a fair amount
of effort to integrate content providers.

I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as 
actually being a potential boon
to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a 
net-neutral way going
forward.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik  wrote:
> 
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
> wrote this understands what UDP is.
> 
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
> detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
> video streams from that content provider"
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan 
> ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
> upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 
> 
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
> internet this way. 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content 
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
> 
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
> he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay 
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
> 
> 
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>> 
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>> 
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>> 
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>> 
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>> 
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
>> pride of place *for free*?
>> 
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
> 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Joly MacFie  wrote:
> Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
> the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I
> missing?

Cross-subsidy. It's a standard tool of monopoly abuse.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Blake Hudson]

Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional 
cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get 
unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the 
freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I 
think one is more neutral than the other.


Owen DeLong wrote on 11/20/2015 3:50 PM:

It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing.

Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty 
reasonable.

Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. 
In fact, it looks to me
like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness 
to expend a fair amount
of effort to integrate content providers.

I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as 
actually being a potential boon
to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a 
net-neutral way going
forward.

Owen


On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik  wrote:

That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
wrote this understands what UDP is.

"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video 
streams from that content provider"


-Original Message-
From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan 
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way.


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers 
for inclusion in Binge On.

"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that 
Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

According to:


http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
on-the-thumbs-up/

Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped
media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called
Binge On is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to
content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of
"upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

And I just said the same thing two different ways.

Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers*
pride of place *for free*?

Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
the goodness of their hearts.

Cheers,
-- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Blake Hudson  said:
> Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little
> additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have
> preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger
> monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see
> fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the
> other.

So, lucky you: most T-Mobile data plans are doubling in size as well
(same announcement).  They do also offer an unlimited data plan (don't
know the caveats, probably some apply).

-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 07:07 , t...@pelican.org wrote:
> 
> On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch"  
> said:
> 
>> Did someone say NAT?
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8
> 
> Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon!  You, sir, win the Internet for 
> today.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim.
> 
> 

You’re awarding him this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg 


Owen

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

[Jim Burwell]

On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have a simple couple of questions here. 
>>
>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
>> prefixes it delegates.  Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
>> omission of this responsibility would be the case.
>>
>> My questions are:
>>
>> 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
>> managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
>> outside of its function?  (I suspect the latter)
> Yes and no…
>
> DHCPv6 doesn’t include anything specifically per se, but it does require that
> the local router sees the DHCPv6 PD answer in the process of passing it
> along to the target, and there’s a pretty obvious expectation that said router
> will have to arrange to do the needful in that respect.
>
>> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
>> prefixes in the ISPs routing domain?  Has a standard method/best
>> practice emerged yet?  Routing protocols?  IPv6 RAs?
> RAs really only apply to subnet local advertisement of routers and
> the on-net prefixes in most implementations.
>
> I don’t think any of the various methods of using routing protocols,
> static pre-routed blocks from which PDs are delegated, etc.  could
> necessarily be called “standardized”, but there are probably a few
> that are more popular than most of the others.
>
> Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
> and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
> sort of site hierarchy.
>
> Owen
>
>

On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have a simple couple of questions here. 
>>
>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
>> prefixes it delegates.  Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
>> omission of this responsibility would be the case.
>>
>> My questions are:
>>
>> 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
>> managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
>> outside of its function?  (I suspect the latter)
> Yes and no…
>
> DHCPv6 doesn’t include anything specifically per se, but it does require that
> the local router sees the DHCPv6 PD answer in the process of passing it
> along to the target, and there’s a pretty obvious expectation that said router
> will have to arrange to do the needful in that respect.
>
>> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
>> prefixes in the ISPs routing domain?  Has a standard method/best
>> practice emerged yet?  Routing protocols?  IPv6 RAs?
> RAs really only apply to subnet local advertisement of routers and
> the on-net prefixes in most implementations.
>
> I don’t think any of the various methods of using routing protocols,
> static pre-routed blocks from which PDs are delegated, etc.  could
> necessarily be called “standardized”, but there are probably a few
> that are more popular than most of the others.
>
> Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
> and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
> sort of site hierarchy.
>
> Owen
>
>
Thanks for the answer Owen!

So it sounds like things are still in flux.  But it least it answers my
main question of "have I missed something here"?

Could you elaborate on the "local router seeing the PD answer" a bit?  I
presume by "local router" you mean router acting as DHCPv6 relay?  Or do
you mean the router which made the original request?

Would it be fair to say that the RFCs only really talk about delegating
the prefixes, and leave what to do with the prefixes themselves up to
the implementer?

I'm asking these questions because I'm doing a little class for some
folks on IPv6 and this is one area where I couldn't find answers. 

- Jim

Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Nov/15 06:02, Yury Shefer wrote:

> My team mate was traveling to China with his Nexus 6 (with Project Fi
> SIM-card) and was able to access Google services. The phone uses roaming
> data to access Google and your phone gets IP assigned by your home mobile
> network packet gateway (P-GW). There is no local data break-out.

Part of the IPX spiel has been about encouraging local break-out to
improve the practical experience of the roamer. However, the excuse this
does not happen is the difficulty that brings to billing, despite all
the talk about Diametre signaling in IPX infrastructure...

You can imagine what my experience is like roaming in Honolulu when I
live in South Africa...

Mark.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since 
UDP is stateless.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik  wrote:
> 
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
> wrote this understands what UDP is.
> 
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
> detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
> video streams from that content provider"
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan 
> ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
> upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 
> 
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
> internet this way. 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content 
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
> 
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
> he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay 
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
> 
> 
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>> 
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>> 
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>> 
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>> 
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>> 
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
>> pride of place *for free*?
>> 
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
> 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

Unlimited data plan is $30/mo.

Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and 
data
rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion, 
oversubscription,
etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a 
year now.

The biggest problem I have (other than occasionally terrible call quality) is 
that due
to religious stupidity, they refuse to support IPv6 over LTE for iOS.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 14:09 , Chris Adams  wrote:
> 
> Once upon a time, Blake Hudson  said:
>> Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little
>> additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have
>> preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger
>> monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see
>> fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the
>> other.
> 
> So, lucky you: most T-Mobile data plans are doubling in size as well
> (same announcement).  They do also offer an unlimited data plan (don't
> know the caveats, probably some apply).
> 
> -- 
> Chris Adams 

RE: Comcast eastern Washington storm update?

[Joshua]

We had hundreds of users in WA with Comcast having many issues yesterday. 
Comcast never would acknowledge it was an issue. It finally just cleared up. 
Their VOIP phones were not working, all website were really slow and generating 
PCBD errors. Not sure if this helps but thought I would mention it. We had no 
other users reporting issues from the rest of the USA.
 
> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:10:27 -0800
> Subject: Re: Comcast eastern Washington storm update?
> From: aa...@heyaaron.com
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> 
> Er, I should have mentioned 'Spokane, WA'.
> On Nov 19, 2015 4:39 PM, "Aaron C. de Bruyn"  wrote:
> 
> > I know the east side of my state was nailed with a big storm.  The Gov
> > declared a state of emergency.
> >
> > Comcast service for several of my clients has understandably been down
> > since Tuesday.
> >
> > I called in a few times over the last two days and the automated message
> > keeps saying "service should be restored by 12:01 PM today", after that
> > time passes the message gets changed to 7:01 PM, then to 8:01 AM, then
> > 12:01 PM.  (Always '01'--what's with that?)
> >
> > One time I let the call get through to a rep and they couldn't give any
> > information on the extent of the damage or an ETA.
> >
> > Can anyone at Comcast shed some light on the disaster over there or give a
> > rough idea on service restoration?
> >
> > As always, I appreciate the hard work from the guys in the trenches and
> > the engineers that miraculously seem to keep my clients up 24/7.  (Just for
> > fun, attached are stats about the router for 365 days before the storm
> > hit--and most of that 'unreachable' time was probably issues with the
> > monitoring server.)
> >
> > Thanks again for all your hard work.
> >
> > -A
> >
> >
> >
  

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Ian Smith]

http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way. 


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers 
for inclusion in Binge On.

"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to 
access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
> on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
> Binge On is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
> pride of place *for free*?
>
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Rack Locks

[Kevin Burke]

What kind of experience do people have with rack access control systems
(electronic locks)?  Anything I should pay attention to with the
products?

Hope this questions hasn't already been answered.  Not to picky about
what/who.  The APC solution seems to start getting pricy with multiple
racks.  I see arduino has an RFID reader but haven't found the door
opener.

The racks in question are standard APC (SX?) racks.

Background
We have half a dozen racks, mostly ours.  Mostly I want something to log
who opened what door when.  Cooling overhaul is next on the list but one
at a time.  Even with cameras those janky make nobody happy.

If someone knows a better place to ask this that would be nice too.

Thanks for your time!

Kevin Burke
802-540-0979
Burlington Telecom - City of Burlington
200 Church St, Burlington, VT 05401

DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

[Jim Burwell]

Hi,

Have a simple couple of questions here. 

In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
prefixes it delegates.  Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
omission of this responsibility would be the case.

My questions are:

1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
outside of its function?  (I suspect the latter)
2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
prefixes in the ISPs routing domain?  Has a standard method/best
practice emerged yet?  Routing protocols?  IPv6 RAs?

One obvious answer would be routing protocols.  In my brief googling,
I've seen a forum post that seems to indicate that Comcast makes use of
RIPng on their CPE to propagate routing information for prefixes
delegated to it.  Can someone confirm this?  This would seem as good a
method as any to do this, albeit with obvious security concerns.

What's the best way to implement a DHCPV6 PD client on a Linux router? 
Dibbler seems to do everything except route propagation (asks for PD,
puts PD address on local NIC if asked).  Anything better out there?

TIA,
- Jim

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Steve Mikulasik]

Requiring streaming companies not to use UDP is pretty absurd. Surely they must 
be able to identify streaming traffic without needing TCP.

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Owen DeLong
Sent: ‎11/‎20/‎2015 4:32 PM
To: Steve Mikulasik
Cc: Ian Smith; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since 
UDP is stateless.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik  wrote:
>
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
> wrote this understands what UDP is.
>
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
> detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
> video streams from that content provider"
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan 
> ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
> upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
>
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
> internet this way.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content 
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
> he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay 
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>
>
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>>
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers*
>> pride of place *for free*?
>>
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Have a simple couple of questions here. 
> 
> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
> prefixes it delegates.  Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
> omission of this responsibility would be the case.
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
> managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
> outside of its function?  (I suspect the latter)

Yes and no…

DHCPv6 doesn’t include anything specifically per se, but it does require that
the local router sees the DHCPv6 PD answer in the process of passing it
along to the target, and there’s a pretty obvious expectation that said router
will have to arrange to do the needful in that respect.

> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
> prefixes in the ISPs routing domain?  Has a standard method/best
> practice emerged yet?  Routing protocols?  IPv6 RAs?

RAs really only apply to subnet local advertisement of routers and
the on-net prefixes in most implementations.

I don’t think any of the various methods of using routing protocols,
static pre-routed blocks from which PDs are delegated, etc.  could
necessarily be called “standardized”, but there are probably a few
that are more popular than most of the others.

Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
sort of site hierarchy.

Owen

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

[Owen DeLong]

> On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Have a simple couple of questions here. 
>>> 
>>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>>> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
>>> prefixes it delegates.  Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
>>> omission of this responsibility would be the case.
>>> 
>>> My questions are:
>>> 
>>> 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
>>> managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
>>> outside of its function?  (I suspect the latter)
>> Yes and no…
>> 
>> DHCPv6 doesn’t include anything specifically per se, but it does require that
>> the local router sees the DHCPv6 PD answer in the process of passing it
>> along to the target, and there’s a pretty obvious expectation that said 
>> router
>> will have to arrange to do the needful in that respect.
>> 
>>> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
>>> prefixes in the ISPs routing domain?  Has a standard method/best
>>> practice emerged yet?  Routing protocols?  IPv6 RAs?
>> RAs really only apply to subnet local advertisement of routers and
>> the on-net prefixes in most implementations.
>> 
>> I don’t think any of the various methods of using routing protocols,
>> static pre-routed blocks from which PDs are delegated, etc.  could
>> necessarily be called “standardized”, but there are probably a few
>> that are more popular than most of the others.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
>> and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
>> sort of site hierarchy.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> Thanks for the answer Owen!
> 
> So it sounds like things are still in flux.  But it least it answers my
> main question of "have I missed something here"?
> 
> Could you elaborate on the "local router seeing the PD answer" a bit?  I
> presume by "local router" you mean router acting as DHCPv6 relay?  Or do
> you mean the router which made the original request?

I mean the router that will deliver the PD to the requesting DHCPv6 client.

If the DHCPv6 server is on-net, then this will be the requesting client.
Otherwise, it will be the last relay router.

> Would it be fair to say that the RFCs only really talk about delegating
> the prefixes, and leave what to do with the prefixes themselves up to
> the implementer?

Yes… At least at this time. Some of the work in homenet might include
some suggestions for some implementations.


> I'm asking these questions because I'm doing a little class for some
> folks on IPv6 and this is one area where I couldn't find answers. 

Depending on your audience, I’d suggest that unless this is an advanced
IPv6 class, it’s probably one of those topics left for extra-curicular research.

Owen

Re: Rack Locks

[Jimmy Hess]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Kevin Burke
 wrote:
> What kind of experience do people have with rack access control systems
> (electronic locks)?  Anything I should pay attention to with the

Overpriced, overkill for most real-world uses?
High-Tech technology for technology's sake?

Avoid them if you can. Within six months or so,  at least once,there will
probably be some glitch delaying or denying required prompt access.
[snip]

> Background
> We have half a dozen racks, mostly ours.  Mostly I want something to log
> who opened what door when.  Cooling overhaul is next on the list but one

It probably makes sense if there are more than a handful of people with
unobserved physical access, and high frequency of access,  or there's a
trust issue, high-risk consideration.Or  you have to satisfy a
"Checkbox Auditor".

You're not going to be able to look at a log and see Joe opened it at 2:45AM
12 months ago,  and ever since then,  the servers are not quite right.

Consider manual procedures

Example:   Electronic access control to the actual rooms.
A Robo-Key system (RKS),  Keyvault, or Realtor lockboxes on
each server rack ^_^

Physical locks on cabinets.Key vault that supports multiple combinations.
Then you don't need exotic hardware,  just a good lock, and sound key control
procedures.

I am imaging if you need to automate control of individual keys;
that there will be more competing solutions for this than specialty rack locks.

Logging procedures for key access...
Send an e-mail when someone opens the vault.

Simple magnetic reed switches on all cabinet doors.
Send an e-mail when a cabinet door is opened.
Quite a few standard alarm panels can do those types of things.

Assign someone to periodically check  handwritten logs and check for
discrepancies. ^_^

> at a time.  Even with cameras those janky make nobody happy.
-- 
-JH

Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Nov/15 05:08, Jared Geiger wrote:

> When you roam onto another cellular network other than your home network,
> your data is encapsulated and sent back to your home network before going
> out to the internet. This is to provide a seamless experience for the
> customer.

I always felt it was just to ease billing headaches.

Local hand-off has the potential to make billing more difficult. Not
doing that is at the expense of a better experience for the customer.

Mark.

Re: Rack Locks

[Joe Abley]

On Nov 20, 2015, at 20:55, Jimmy Hess  wrote:

> You're not going to be able to look at a log and see Joe opened it at 2:45AM
> 12 months ago,  and ever since then,  the servers are not quite right.

And I would have got away with it to, if it wasn't for you kids and
your pesky logs.


Joe

Re: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak

[Mike Hammett]

Your searching is apparently much better than mine. I checked when at NANOG 
last month and didn't see anything, but there it is... 


So then I wonder... when I've had bankrupt clients before, I wasn't allowed to 
disconnect service until the court was all said and done. I doubt it's done 
this quickly. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Aaron Ryan"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:20:51 PM 
Subject: Re: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak 



We have some servers hosted at Xeex that were down for 2 hours on Tuesday, Nov 
17 2015 from 12:59:02 to 15:02:49 PST 


I did some research and it looks like they are in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. 

http://chapter11cases.com/2015/09/03/bankruptcy-case-filing-alert-nr-software-systems-inc-dba-xeex-communications-in-california-central-district/
 




On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, NR SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a XEEX 
COMMUNICATIONS filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the United States 
Bankruptcy Code or had an involuntary petition filed against it. The bankruptcy 
petition was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court located in Los Angeles 
(California – Central District) and was assigned Case Number 2:15-bk-21180-ER. 
Judge Robles is presiding over the bankruptcy case. Contact information for the 
debtor and its counsel are listed as: 
NR SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a XEEX COMMUNICATIONS 
615 S. Grand Ave. 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Alan Broidy 
1925 Century Park E 17th Fl 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 




On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


Last time I was in their cage, I saw an R network and a cable company in 
their cage, so I bet there are quite a few hot people right about now. :-\ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message - 

From: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > 
To: "NANOG list" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 8:24:30 PM 
Subject: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak 



Has anyone else that had services from Xeex Communications have a disruption 
recently? Our stuff went down shortly after 5:00 this afternoon. I get to 
Equinix and our cross connects through them are gone. I had suspected some 
trouble over there and it appears that I unfortunately was correct. 


P.S. Looking for anyone with 1/4 cab, 10A of power and is good with cross 
connects in Equinix 350 E. Cermak to hit me up ASAP. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

Re: Rack Locks

[Bevan Slattery]

Hi Kevin,

Well I¹m happy to provide my experience.  When I decided to build a new
data centre business back in 2010, I started with a simple premise.  That
the core data centre experience must be controlled by browser and phone.
That system was (and still is called) ONEDC.

A key component of this is for the ability for our customers to:

*  Remotely lock and unlock racks from their phone (great for remote hands)
*  Use Facility Prox swipe cards to lock/unlock racks in facility at swipe
points at end of aisle (did that back in 2008)
*  Needed to provide users/customers the ability to add/remove their staff
(and their customers) access to racks including time of day, time of week
access as well as a per rack access granular level (handy if you have 10
racks in a row with 5 different customers so you can limit their access,
or a contractor with time of day access such as a tape swap out service)
*  Full data output allowing me to provide real time audit logs (yes audit
logs for security).

We did some pretty cool stuff with power management/measurement etc. and
made a little video 3 years ago (my kids are playing soccer in the
background ;))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vvIJOfBcE  The product has come on a lot
since it launched (I left the company 2 years ago now).


So what did we do.  I used to use a relay type system in 2007-10 in my
previous data centre life.  It¹s pretty good but a bit ³industrial².  It¹s
also so 2007 (even 1990) and doesn¹t scale well when you are trying to do
3,000 racks and 6,000 doors per facility.  I looked at the APC electronic
locking system, but the big issue is that some fool in product decided to
remove radius authentication, allowing a decent independent
command/control capability.

The product I went with was TZ rack locking because:
*  Solid product with background in remote post office/delivery locking
systems
*  Use ³Shape Memory Alloy² system in which the lock mechanism is a fluid
type alloy that changes shape with voltage, rather than old school
mechanical locking
*  They look really cool, fit most racks and have some great features
(like delayed lock for 5 seconds in case you realise you left your screw
driver in the rack :))
*  Provided API Access so I can integrate it into our rack management
system (ONEDC)
*  Full log interface

They will try to ship you the entire product suite, but if you can commit
to decent scale they are flexible (API access, support etc.) and let you
integrate into the locks.  I think NEXTDC has probably deployed about
10,000 doors and one of the old team at NEXTDC is now working for TZ and
he eats this stuff for breakfast.  I can pass on his details if you wish.

Anyway I can definitely recommend TZ http://ixp.tz.net .  In looking at
their website their product set and locking systems have expanded in the
last 2 years or so.  Hope this helps.


Cheers

[b]


On 21/11/2015 11:55 am, "NANOG on behalf of Jimmy Hess"
 wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Kevin Burke
> wrote:
>> What kind of experience do people have with rack access control systems
>> (electronic locks)?  Anything I should pay attention to with the
>
>Overpriced, overkill for most real-world uses?
>High-Tech technology for technology's sake?
>
>Avoid them if you can. Within six months or so,  at least once,there
>will
>probably be some glitch delaying or denying required prompt access.
>[snip]
>
>> Background
>> We have half a dozen racks, mostly ours.  Mostly I want something to log
>> who opened what door when.  Cooling overhaul is next on the list but one
>
>It probably makes sense if there are more than a handful of people with
>unobserved physical access, and high frequency of access,  or there's a
>trust issue, high-risk consideration.Or  you have to satisfy a
>"Checkbox Auditor".
>
>You're not going to be able to look at a log and see Joe opened it at
>2:45AM
>12 months ago,  and ever since then,  the servers are not quite right.
>
>Consider manual procedures
>
>Example:   Electronic access control to the actual rooms.
>A Robo-Key system (RKS),  Keyvault, or Realtor lockboxes on
>each server rack ^_^
>
>Physical locks on cabinets.Key vault that supports multiple
>combinations.
>Then you don't need exotic hardware,  just a good lock, and sound key
>control
>procedures.
>
>I am imaging if you need to automate control of individual keys;
>that there will be more competing solutions for this than specialty rack
>locks.
>
>Logging procedures for key access...
>Send an e-mail when someone opens the vault.
>
>Simple magnetic reed switches on all cabinet doors.
>Send an e-mail when a cabinet door is opened.
>Quite a few standard alarm panels can do those types of things.
>
>Assign someone to periodically check  handwritten logs and check for
>discrepancies. ^_^
>
>> at a time.  Even with cameras those janky make nobody happy.
>-- 
>-JH

Re: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak

[Mike Hammett]

Last time I was in their cage, I saw an R network and a cable company in 
their cage, so I bet there are quite a few hot people right about now. :-\ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 8:24:30 PM 
Subject: Xeex & 350 E. Cermak 

Has anyone else that had services from Xeex Communications have a disruption 
recently? Our stuff went down shortly after 5:00 this afternoon. I get to 
Equinix and our cross connects through them are gone. I had suspected some 
trouble over there and it appears that I unfortunately was correct. 


P.S. Looking for anyone with 1/4 cab, 10A of power and is good with cross 
connects in Equinix 350 E. Cermak to hit me up ASAP. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

Xeex & 350 E. Cermak

[Mike Hammett]

Has anyone else that had services from Xeex Communications have a disruption 
recently? Our stuff went down shortly after 5:00 this afternoon. I get to 
Equinix and our cross connects through them are gone. I had suspected some 
trouble over there and it appears that I unfortunately was correct. 


P.S. Looking for anyone with 1/4 cab, 10A of power and is good with cross 
connects in Equinix 350 E. Cermak to hit me up ASAP. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

[Matt Palmer]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:35:55PM -0800, Jim Burwell wrote:
> My questions are:
> 
> 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
> managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
> outside of its function?  (I suspect the latter)

It's considered outside of function.  It makes a lot of sense, from the
*protocol's* viewpoint, not to go constraining itself in any way.

*Implementations*, on the other hand, appear to have kinda dropped the ball,
insofar as none of the OSS DHCPv6 servers that can do PD appear to have put
any thought into what to do with the prefixes delegated.

> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
> prefixes in the ISPs routing domain?  Has a standard method/best
> practice emerged yet?  Routing protocols?  IPv6 RAs?

I hacked some code into ISCP DHCPD to give called scripts sufficient knowledge
to add routes to the local machine's routing table:


http://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/blog/2014/11/20/multi-level-prefix-delegation-is-not-a-myth-ive-seen-it.html

(Holy crap, I published that post almost exactly a year ago today...)

More recently, I'm doing some work with a production containerised
environment, and I decided to use RAs to propagate /64 routes amongst the
container hosts and immediate upstream router (the upstream router has the
whole /48 routed to it, and the router then gets the RAs to know which
machine to send the /64 to).  It seems to work rather well.  If I had any
more complicated a setup, I'd definitely have broken out the OSPF or
something.

> One obvious answer would be routing protocols.  In my brief googling,
> I've seen a forum post that seems to indicate that Comcast makes use of
> RIPng on their CPE to propagate routing information for prefixes
> delegated to it.  Can someone confirm this?  This would seem as good a
> method as any to do this, albeit with obvious security concerns.

I can't confirm Comcast's use of anything in particular, but I'd certainly
consider it a possibility.  In an ISP environment, I think I'd prefer for my
routing to *not* be under the control of anything that the customer can get
their fingers into, but I'm sure there's suitable filters in place to stop a
customer trying to announce all of 2000::/3...

> What's the best way to implement a DHCPV6 PD client on a Linux router? 
> Dibbler seems to do everything except route propagation (asks for PD,
> puts PD address on local NIC if asked).  Anything better out there?

Well, I'm quite partial to the solution I hacked up for ISC DHCPD, but it's
hard to argue that I'm an unbiased observer.  

- Matt