Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC Course + More

[bzs]

One could argue that much of this behavior was the result of most of
the internet preferring free, or nearly free, to paying for services
so all this jiggery-pokery evolved to try to make money to pay for
services and generate profits.

I suppose in theory one could argue they could have charged and
evolved all this but it's reasonable to wonder if that would have
happened, or at such scale. Or perhaps paying customers would have had
sufficient leverage to demand it not be done.

Much of the net arises from the question: Ok, no one will actually
want to pay for this (or not enough to make it worth our while to
implement), so what's the business model? I know, eyeballs, collect
and sell their information, track them mercilessly, stuff it with ads,
etc.

And here we are.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/9/23 22:29, Dave Cohen wrote:

At a previous $dayjob at a Tier 1, we would only support LAG for a 
customer L2/3 service if the ports were on the same card. The response 
we gave if customers pushed back was "we don't consider LAG a form of 
circuit protection, so we're not going to consider physical resiliency 
in the design", which was true, because we didn't, but it was beside 
the point. The real reason was that getting our switching/routing 
platform to actually run traffic symmetrically across a LAG, which 
most end users considered expected behavior in a LAG, required a 
reconfiguration of the default hash, which effectively meant that 
[switching/routing vendor]'s TAC wouldn't help when something 
invariably went wrong. So it wasn't that it wouldn't work (my 
recollection at least is that everything ran fine in lab environments) 
but we didn't trust the hardware vendor support.


We've had the odd bug here and there with LAG's for things like VRRP, 
BFD, e.t.c. But we have not run into that specific issue before on 
ASR1000's, ASR9000's, CRS-X's and MX. 98% of our network is Juniper 
nowadays, but even when we ran Cisco and had LAG's across multiple line 
cards, we didn't see this problem.


The only hashing issue we had with LAG's is when we tried to carry Layer 
2 traffic across them in the core. But this was just a limitation of the 
CRS-X, and happened also on member links of a LAG that shared the same 
line card.


Mark.

Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Dave Cohen]

At a previous $dayjob at a Tier 1, we would only support LAG for a customer
L2/3 service if the ports were on the same card. The response we gave if
customers pushed back was "we don't consider LAG a form of circuit
protection, so we're not going to consider physical resiliency in the
design", which was true, because we didn't, but it was beside the point.
The real reason was that getting our switching/routing platform to actually
run traffic symmetrically across a LAG, which most end users considered
expected behavior in a LAG, required a reconfiguration of the default hash,
which effectively meant that [switching/routing vendor]'s TAC wouldn't help
when something invariably went wrong. So it wasn't that it wouldn't work
(my recollection at least is that everything ran fine in lab environments)
but we didn't trust the hardware vendor support.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 3:36 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/9/23 20:44, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > i am going to be foolish and comment, as i have not seen this raised
> >
> > if i am running a lag, i can not resist adding a bit of resilience by
> > having it spread across line cards.
> >
> > surprise!  line cards from vendor  do not have uniform hashing
> > or rotating algorithms.
>
> We spread all our LAG's across multiple line cards wherever possible
> (wherever possible = chassis-based hardware).
>
> I am not intimately aware of any hashing concerns for LAG's that
> traverse multiple line cards in the same chassis.
>
> Mark.
>


-- 
- Dave Cohen
craetd...@gmail.com
@dCoSays
www.venicesunlight.com

Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/9/23 20:44, Randy Bush wrote:


i am going to be foolish and comment, as i have not seen this raised

if i am running a lag, i can not resist adding a bit of resilience by
having it spread across line cards.

surprise!  line cards from vendor  do not have uniform hashing
or rotating algorithms.


We spread all our LAG's across multiple line cards wherever possible 
(wherever possible = chassis-based hardware).


I am not intimately aware of any hashing concerns for LAG's that 
traverse multiple line cards in the same chassis.


Mark.

Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC Course + More

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Are you saying the very org that brings us together, is not allowed to
> spur discussion based on newsletter content and cannot provide us with
> updates and/or reminders about various things?
>

I don't believe anyone is making that argument at all.

The published usage guidelines are what the organization, via the
membership, decided they should be. Those guidelines are clear that on THIS
mailing list (nanog@) , marketing initiatives aren't allowed.There is no
exception that says 'except for our own marketing'.

This list is for 'operational and technical content only'. We can't ban
people for trying to sneak marketing stuff through here (and we have) , and
then turn right around and do it ourselves.





On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 12:48 PM Ryan Hamel  wrote:

> Martin and Tom,
>
> How is it a private marketing initiative exactly if the links go to
> stories on NANOG's website? Are you saying the very org that brings us
> together, is not allowed to spur discussion based on newsletter content and
> cannot provide us with updates and/or reminders about various things?
>
> Y'all have been making a mountain out of a molehill.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> *From:* Tom Beecher 
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:30:13 AM
> *To:* Martin Hannigan 
> *Cc:* Ryan Hamel ; nanog@nanog.org 
> *Subject:* Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming
> ISOC Course + More
>
> Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care
> when clicking links or opening attachments.
>
> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>>
>> Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its
>> NANOG marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>>
>
> This is the right comment.
>
> The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines  (
> https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ ) are fairly clear
> about this.
>
> Posts to NANOG’s Mailing List should be focused on operational and
>> technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws.
>> Using the NANOG Mailing List as a source for private marketing
>> initiatives, or product marketing of any kind, is prohibited.
>
>
> Sending this type of message to nanog@ is not appropriate, by our own
> rules. This issue will be raised at the next members meeting.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:39 PM Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>
>>
>> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>>
>> Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its
>> NANOG marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 20:52 Ryan Hamel  wrote:
>>
>>> Randy,
>>>
>>> You're right, the problem is not technical. It's a choice to click the
>>> links or not. NANOG does not have to sanitize links for you. Those emails
>>> do not have to be read, and no one is stopping you from filtering them out.
>>> For you to say, "my privacy has been sold", is simply not true.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* NANOG  on behalf of
>>> Randy Bush 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 8, 2023 5:25 PM
>>> *To:* John Gilmore 
>>> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org 
>>> *Subject:* Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for
>>> Upcoming ISOC Course + More
>>>
>>> Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take
>>> care when clicking links or opening attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>> > It is totally possible to turn off the spyware in MailChimp.  You just
>>> > need to buy an actual commercial account rather than using their
>>> > "free" service.  To save $13 or $20 per month, you are instead selling
>>> > the privacy of every recipient of your emails.  See:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchimp.com%2Fhelp%2Fenable-and-view-click-tracking%2F=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7C4ac3a26bb5c4481c087908dbb0cbc6d7%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638298161499653329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Pw6uDgHDzT%2BavOz1jYAbG4VzTyP0en0oiuBq0PmTtVI%3D=0
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >   "Check the Track clicks box to enable click tracking, or uncheck the
>>> >   box to disable click tracking.  ...  Mailchimp will continue to
>>> >   redirect URLs for users with free account plans to protect against
>>> >   malicious links.  ...  When a paid user turns off click tracking,
>>> >   Mailchimp will continue to redirect their URLs until certain account
>>> >   activity thresholds are met."
>>> >
>>> > Don't forget to turn off the spyware 1x1 pixel "web bugs" that
>>> > MailChimp inserts by default, too:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 

Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Randy Bush]

i am going to be foolish and comment, as i have not seen this raised

if i am running a lag, i can not resist adding a bit of resilience by
having it spread across line cards.

surprise!  line cards from vendor  do not have uniform hashing
or rotating algorithms.

randy

Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Benny Lyne Amorsen]

Mark Tinka  writes:

> Oh? What is it then, if it's not spraying successive packets across
> member links?

It sprays the packets more or less randomly across links, and each link
then does individual buffering. It introduces an unnecessary random
delay to each packet, when it could just place them successively on the
next link.

> Ummh, no, it won't.
>
> If it did, it would have been widespread. But it's not.

It seems optimistic to argue that we have reached perfection in
networking.

The Linux TCP stack does not immediately start backing off when it
encounters packet reordering. In the server world, packet-based
round-robin is a fairly common interface bonding strategy, with the
accompanying reordering, and generally it performs great.

Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC Course + More

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 12:30 Tom Beecher  wrote:

> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>>
>> Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its
>> NANOG marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>>
>
> This is the right comment.
>
> The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines  (
> https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ ) are fairly clear
> about this.
>
> Posts to NANOG’s Mailing List should be focused on operational and
>> technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws.
>> Using the NANOG Mailing List as a source for private marketing
>> initiatives, or product marketing of any kind, is prohibited.
>
>
> Sending this type of message to nanog@ is not appropriate, by our own
> rules. This issue will be raised at the next members meeting.
>

Thats great. Thanks. This started to happen sometime around June looking at
the sender address and my inbox.  It would be nice to be opt-in vs opt-out
and that labels are crafted to not confuse the ops list with others. I also
agree with Randy that if we can strip out the trackers here that is key.
Consistent with culture and history. Course adjustment ++.

Hope thats constructive. Thanks!

Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC Course + More

[Ryan Hamel]

Martin and Tom,

How is it a private marketing initiative exactly if the links go to stories on 
NANOG's website? Are you saying the very org that brings us together, is not 
allowed to spur discussion based on newsletter content and cannot provide us 
with updates and/or reminders about various things?

Y'all have been making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ryan


From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:30:13 AM
To: Martin Hannigan 
Cc: Ryan Hamel ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC 
Course + More

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when 
clicking links or opening attachments.

What network does Nanog-news operate?

Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its NANOG 
marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).

This is the right comment.

The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines  ( 
https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ ) are fairly clear about this.

Posts to NANOG’s Mailing List should be focused on operational and technical 
content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws.
Using the NANOG Mailing List as a source for private marketing initiatives, or 
product marketing of any kind, is prohibited.

Sending this type of message to nanog@ is not appropriate, by our own rules. 
This issue will be raised at the next members meeting.




On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:39 PM Martin Hannigan 
mailto:hanni...@gmail.com>> wrote:

What network does Nanog-news operate?

Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its NANOG 
marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).

Warm regards,

-M<


On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 20:52 Ryan Hamel 
mailto:r...@rkhtech.org>> wrote:
Randy,

You're right, the problem is not technical. It's a choice to click the links or 
not. NANOG does not have to sanitize links for you. Those emails do not have to 
be read, and no one is stopping you from filtering them out. For you to say, 
"my privacy has been sold", is simply not true.

Ryan


From: NANOG 
mailto:rkhtech@nanog.org>> on 
behalf of Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 5:25 PM
To: John Gilmore mailto:g...@toad.com>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC 
Course + More

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when 
clicking links or opening attachments.


> It is totally possible to turn off the spyware in MailChimp.  You just
> need to buy an actual commercial account rather than using their
> "free" service.  To save $13 or $20 per month, you are instead selling
> the privacy of every recipient of your emails.  See:
>
>   
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchimp.com%2Fhelp%2Fenable-and-view-click-tracking%2F=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7C4ac3a26bb5c4481c087908dbb0cbc6d7%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638298161499653329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Pw6uDgHDzT%2BavOz1jYAbG4VzTyP0en0oiuBq0PmTtVI%3D=0
>
>   "Check the Track clicks box to enable click tracking, or uncheck the
>   box to disable click tracking.  ...  Mailchimp will continue to
>   redirect URLs for users with free account plans to protect against
>   malicious links.  ...  When a paid user turns off click tracking,
>   Mailchimp will continue to redirect their URLs until certain account
>   activity thresholds are met."
>
> Don't forget to turn off the spyware 1x1 pixel "web bugs" that
> MailChimp inserts by default, too:
>
>   
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchimp.com%2Fhelp%2Fabout-open-tracking%2F=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7C4ac3a26bb5c4481c087908dbb0cbc6d7%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638298161499653329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=iqkTsuhDFD3poxVltrN4x%2FWY6eXpbIivWxf4VAWcXKA%3D=0


as usual, the problem is not technical.  there is no need for mailchump
at all.

nanog management has made a very intentional decision to sell my
privacy.  nanog has come a long way, not all of it  good.

randy

Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for Upcoming ISOC Course + More

[Tom Beecher]

>
> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>
> Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its NANOG
> marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>

This is the right comment.

The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines  (
https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ ) are fairly clear about
this.

Posts to NANOG’s Mailing List should be focused on operational and
> technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws.
> Using the NANOG Mailing List as a source for private marketing
> initiatives, or product marketing of any kind, is prohibited.


Sending this type of message to nanog@ is not appropriate, by our own
rules. This issue will be raised at the next members meeting.




On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:39 PM Martin Hannigan  wrote:

>
> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>
> Marketing email doesn’t  belong on an operational list.  Even if its NANOG
> marketing itself.  (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -M<
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 20:52 Ryan Hamel  wrote:
>
>> Randy,
>>
>> You're right, the problem is not technical. It's a choice to click the
>> links or not. NANOG does not have to sanitize links for you. Those emails
>> do not have to be read, and no one is stopping you from filtering them out.
>> For you to say, "my privacy has been sold", is simply not true.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> --
>> *From:* NANOG  on behalf of
>> Randy Bush 
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 8, 2023 5:25 PM
>> *To:* John Gilmore 
>> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org 
>> *Subject:* Re: Guest Column: Kentik's Doug Madory, Last Call for
>> Upcoming ISOC Course + More
>>
>> Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care
>> when clicking links or opening attachments.
>>
>>
>> > It is totally possible to turn off the spyware in MailChimp.  You just
>> > need to buy an actual commercial account rather than using their
>> > "free" service.  To save $13 or $20 per month, you are instead selling
>> > the privacy of every recipient of your emails.  See:
>> >
>> >
>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchimp.com%2Fhelp%2Fenable-and-view-click-tracking%2F=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7C4ac3a26bb5c4481c087908dbb0cbc6d7%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638298161499653329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Pw6uDgHDzT%2BavOz1jYAbG4VzTyP0en0oiuBq0PmTtVI%3D=0
>> 
>> >
>> >   "Check the Track clicks box to enable click tracking, or uncheck the
>> >   box to disable click tracking.  ...  Mailchimp will continue to
>> >   redirect URLs for users with free account plans to protect against
>> >   malicious links.  ...  When a paid user turns off click tracking,
>> >   Mailchimp will continue to redirect their URLs until certain account
>> >   activity thresholds are met."
>> >
>> > Don't forget to turn off the spyware 1x1 pixel "web bugs" that
>> > MailChimp inserts by default, too:
>> >
>> >
>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchimp.com%2Fhelp%2Fabout-open-tracking%2F=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7C4ac3a26bb5c4481c087908dbb0cbc6d7%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638298161499653329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=iqkTsuhDFD3poxVltrN4x%2FWY6eXpbIivWxf4VAWcXKA%3D=0
>> 
>>
>>
>> as usual, the problem is not technical.  there is no need for mailchump
>> at all.
>>
>> nanog management has made a very intentional decision to sell my
>> privacy.  nanog has come a long way, not all of it  good.
>>
>> randy
>>
>