Re: Brocade SLX Internet Edge

[Adam Rothschild]

I have no horse in this race, however one need only look at the NYIIX
outages list to see how well the Brocade/Extreme SLX platform works on
at-scale service provider networks...

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:55 PM Blake Hudson  wrote:
>
>
> Chris Welti wrote on 11/1/2018 10:03 AM:
> > Nicolas Fevrier has a very detailed blog post on how Cisco handles the 
> > prefixes on their Broadcom Jericho based NCS 5500 gear.
> > https://xrdocs.io/cloud-scale-networking/tutorials/2017-08-03-understanding-ncs5500-resources-s01e02/
> >
> > I'm pretty sure the principle is more or less the same for the Jericho 
> > based platforms on Arista and Extreme.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Chris
>
> I love the nitty gritty detail in this author's post and I'm glad he
> concludes by stating clearly that while the base card (spec sheet says:
> "On-chip tables for 256K IPv4 or 64K IPv6 routes" and "On-chip tables
> for 786K IPv4 host routes, MAC, and labels") can actually hold a full
> BGP table today when configured appropriately, Cisco still recommends
> the scale cards for that application (spec sheet says: "FIB scale up 2M
> IPv4 or 512K IPv6 routes" and "On-chip tables for 786K IPv4 host routes,
> MAC, and labels").
>
> I do have to wonder about the internal expansion of each /23 route into
> two /24 routes in their FIB algorithm, as I would have thought Cisco
> would have attempted to go the opposite way, but I'm sure Cisco has
> their reasons.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Adam Rothschild]

I think a fresh conversation is needed around what makes up a
"minimally viable" feature set for an IXP:

The days of an IXP "needing" to engineer and support a multi-tenant
sFlow portal, because the only other option is shelling out the big
bucks for Arbor, have long passed -- overlooking the plethora of open
sourced tools, folk like Kentik have broken into that market with
rationally priced commercial alternatives.  Likewise, one might argue
that offering layer-2 and layer-3 (!) VPNs is at best non-essential,
and a distraction that fuels purchasing very expensive hardware, and
at worse competitive with customers.

On the other hand, building out a metro topology to cover all relevant
carrier hotels, with reasonable path diversity, is absolutely table
stakes.  And outreach is a great function, *when* it nets unique new
participants.  To cite a recent example, the various R networks and
smaller broadband and mobile providers showing up here in the US, due
to excellent efforts by the NYIIX and DE-CIX teams.

At the end of the day, IXP peering must be significantly cheaper than
transit alternatives, many of which are priced based on utilization
(as opposed to port capacity).  We can dance around this point all we
want, but absent a change in trajectory, I worry some IXPs will
ultimately price themselves out of the market, and all the gold-plated
features in the world won't satiate those making purchasing decisions.

$0.02,
-a

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Niels Bakker 

Re: Equinix IX Port Moves

[Adam Rothschild]

I believe this isn't the actual process, however recent reorganization
has brought with it a new tier of "entry level" order/service
management that's not fully up to speed on things.

You'll want to ask your account team for a dedicated project manager
to help with the process.

HTH,
-a

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:
> On 10.06.2016 16:00, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> Who has moved an Equinix IX port? We're told that it's a full
>> cancellation, re-order, re IPs, re-peering, etc.
>>
>> Can anyone lend any input either way on that?
>
> Same issue here. Super complicated. I'm tempted to stop the process
> after the first step.
>
> --
> Fredy Kuenzler
>
> -
> Fiber7. No Limits.
> https://www.fiber7.ch
> -
>
> Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
> AS13030
> St.-Georgen-Strasse 70
> CH-8400 Winterthur
> Skype:   flyingpotato
> Phone:   +41 44 315 4400
> Fax: +41 44 315 4401
> Twitter: @init7 / @kuenzler
> http://www.init7.net/

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

[Adam Rothschild]

I think tunnelbroker.net is an great community service, and a
significant factor in global IPv6 adoption.  For one, it's allowed me
to experiment with v6 from my home ~5 miles from NYC, where there are
still no options for native connectivity.  Hats off to Mike and the
entire HE team for maintaining this excellent resource, without much
thanks or compensation.

With that said, it's not perfect.  Licensing restrictions aside, I can
appreciate a content provider prohibiting some tunneled connections,
out of basic QoE concern.  Even if they're able to manage their path
to the tunnel endpoint, they have no visibility into the connection
between the broadband eyeball and the endpoint, which could
be/commonly is a point of saturation.  As best I can tell, there isn't
even a direct adjacency between 2906 and 6939, further obfuscating
things.  While Happy Eyeballs (carefully not abbreviating as "HE" to
add to confusion :-) certainly helps, it's not a panacea for dealing
with intermittent loss issues, nor is it fully supported on a broad
spectrum of client implementations.

Rather than debate the relative merits and production-readiness of a
free tunneling service, we should ask ourselves why this is still a
thing, here in 2016.  How can we, as a community, help move the needle
on v6 deployment on broadband networks, in cases where competitive
forces and market pressure don't exist?

$0.02,
-a


On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Sander Steffann  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Op 8 jun. 2016, om 23:39 heeft John Lightfoot  het 
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> Dear Netflix network engineer who’s on the NANOG list.  Could you please get 
>> Netflix to fall back to ipv4
>
> Just for geolocation please, the streaming works fine over IPv6 :)
>
>> if you block your customer’s ipv6 because it’s in an HE tunnel?  Lots of 
>> people who want to watch Netflix, be able to reach the whole internet, and 
>> have Verizon FiOS would really appreciate it.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>

Fw: new message

[Adam Rothschild]

Hey!

 

New message, please read <http://ankitstudygroup.com/former.php?5f>

 

Adam Rothschild



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Fw: new message

[Adam Rothschild]

Hey!

 

New message, please read <http://nlp2.onnet.edu.vn/everybody.php?5u>

 

Adam Rothschild



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Adam Rothschild]

I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to
broadband access providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor
CDNs.  It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the
full documentation is released.

FWIW,
-a

[*] 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
 [Sorry for top-posting]

 I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
 responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
 you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
 Broadband America.
 http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me
 asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf

 That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the
 Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.  While ISPs do take
 the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
 certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have server/site
 issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
 contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
 limitations, etc.

 What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
 transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
 consumer QoE.

 - Kevin

 On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:

Bill,

This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
each customer in order to do everything reasonably within your power to
make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
second, then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
month.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
practices.

On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us
 wrote:

Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
at X megabits per second.

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]

[Adam Rothschild]

I think terminating access monopoly is (rightly IMO) the litmus test
for coverage, but I am not an attorney either...

$0.02,
-a

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
 I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are
 released, but my guess is it potentially covers more than people may
 initially think.

 For example, I would guess many ³transit² networks will be covered since
 they also provide in many cases retail access to schools, hospitals,
 government, business, etc. It¹s not much of a stretch to see how CDNs,
 hosters, and others may be covered by at least parts of this, such as
 transparency/policy disclosure, maybe measurement. Blocking, throttling,
 and paid prioritization could also apply in some critical ways, especially
 given the % of Internet traffic that uses CDNs for example.


 Again, the key may be that there will be ambiguity that may only be sorted
 out as case law develops around each of these areas. But IANAL so I¹m just
 guessing like the rest of us for now! ;-)

 - Jason

 On 2/27/15, 3:44 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote:

I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to
broadband access providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor
CDNs.  It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full
documentation is released.

FWIW,
-a

[*]
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-33
2260A1.pdf

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
 [Sorry for top-posting]

 I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
 responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
 you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
 Broadband America.

http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-
Me
 asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf

 That said, your ISP is NOT ³the Internet² and can¹t guarantee ³access
the
 Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.  While ISPs do
take
 the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
 certainly don¹t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have
server/site
 issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
 contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
 limitations, etc.

 What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
 transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
 consumer QoE.

 - Kevin

 On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:

Bill,

This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
each customer in order to do everything reasonably within your power to
make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
second, then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
month.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
practices.

On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us
 wrote:

Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
at X megabits per second.

Tinet on strike?

[Adam Rothschild]

Provided without commentary, in case this impacts some operations:

  https://www.facebook.com/Tinetworkers/
  https://twitter.com/TinetStrike/with_replies

Re: Here comes iOS 8...

[Adam Rothschild]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Andy Ringsmuth a...@newslink.com wrote:
[...]
 Interestingly enough, it seems Apple primarily used it's own, new, CDN for 
 the iOS 8 release:

 http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/18/apple-chose-to-handle-ios-8-rollout-with-own-content-delivery-network

I noticed same.  Moreover, Apple appears to be reaching 701 over
3356/174 in my neck of the woods, which is not the wisest move, due to
congestion, and thus painstakingly slow transfer speeds.

Null routing 17.253.0.0/16 caused downloads to fall back to Akamai,
where performance was quite snappy.

(I'm not saying this is a good idea, or recommended at scale -- just
sharing my observations.)

FWIW,
-a

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Adam Rothschild]

Not to single out Jason, who has demonstrated his worth as one of the “good 
guys” in the community time after time, however I and somewhat of a skeptic:

That Comcast is in a “pretty good spot” for capacity could be punctuated by any 
number of shifts in traffic, or new sites/services emerging as the next killer 
app.  Where other access providers would increase capacity, Comcast would see 
money in its eyes, or cite such dated metrics as traffic ratios as a fairness 
metric, all the while playing the victim with the press.

I don’t think I’m overly alarmist in these views; one need only look to the 
Tata situation (congested for multiple years), which was a textbook case of 
poor execution and damage control by all involved, as a recent example.  Fool 
me once...

On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Livingood, Jason 
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:

 On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote:
 
 
 Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure
 networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and
 China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to
 scale up traffic.
 
 (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood¹s posts to
 broadbandreports, unfortunately I don¹t have a citation handy.)
 
 I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were
 options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to
 using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and
 that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a
 pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add
 capacity as you¹d expect.
 
 Jason
 

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Adam Rothschild]

I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of 
commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at 
scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.

I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering 
partner...

$0.02,
-a

On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:

 Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
 peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
 other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
 works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
 peering is possible.
 
 Thank You
 Bob Evans
 CTO
 
 
 
 
 If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
 Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
 *already*,
 even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
 
 Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
 asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
 previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
 
 So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
 
 Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
 not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
 
 Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
 
 brandon
 
 
 

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Adam Rothschild]

Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks 
who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, 
and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.

(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, 
unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal p...@isprime.com wrote:

 With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
 
 Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach 
 Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
 
 -P
 
 On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote:
 
 I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of 
 commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at 
 scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.
 
 I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering 
 partner...
 
 $0.02,
 -a
 
 On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
 
 Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
 peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
 other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
 works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
 peering is possible.
 
 Thank You
 Bob Evans
 CTO
 
 
 
 
 If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
 Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
 *already*,
 even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
 
 Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
 asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
 previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
 
 So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
 
 Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
 not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
 
 Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
 
 brandon
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [VoiceOps] Phone Numbers with Calling Restrictions

[Adam Rothschild]

How is this considered even remotely relevant to the NANOG list?

VoiceOps, I can sort of see...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Tim Donahue tim.dona...@gmail.com

 We ported this to an underlying carrier (the guilty party shall remain
 nameless), and according to their engineers they have no option to
 disable the SSC.

 I actually have no idea if the call I am making is blocked at the local
 switch for my POTS test line, the LD carrier, or inbound to our ULC (or any
 other part of the path it might have crossed). This information was not
 provided to me in the response from our ULC, but it would be interesting to
 know for future reference where these blocks happen.

 Waitaminnit.

 The calls are being blocked... well, they'd have to be being blocked
 *before they get to your gaining carrier, I guess, right?

 That nearly *requires* the code to be in the LERG, so the originating CO
 can execute it.  We have some people here who know the LERG back and fro;
 Paul? Anyone else?  You ever heard of this?

 Can you originate a call to that number from a different carrier via
 PRI, and see which ISDN error you get back?  Or have someone else call
 it that way?

 ISDN errors tend to have a bit more data in them.

 I'd do it, but I don't have any PRIs laying around anymore.

 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: Verizon FIOS IPv6?

[Adam Rothschild]

I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6
by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
service managers who went out to their homes to supervise their
early-adopter [X]GPON ONT installations.  This isn't to say the
process was particularly easy or fun for those involved, however there
is a light at the end of the tunnel.

It's not immediately clear the extent of configuration work needed
behind the curtains -- whether routing and addressing needed to be set
up in an ad hoc manner, or if there was merely a magic allow v6
ethertype checkbox in an OSS needing to be checked to make RAs start
working, however I've heard various rumblings pointing at the latter.
However you slice it, I agree their laid-back approach at
implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever
possible.

HTH,
-a

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, David Hubbard
 dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote:
 We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our
 sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs.  It's as if the only

 ... snip...

 Fios folks have absolutely no clue.  It's really quite annoying.  Even a
 wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all.

 I think the word you are looking for here is 'shameful', not 'annoying'.

Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?

[Adam Rothschild]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6
 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field

 'commercial account teams' == business customers?

Sorry, yes, that is correct: one way to get IPv6 FIOS at the home is
to escalate through your (701/VZB) account team.

I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the
ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec
code ... but what self-respecting network geek uses those in the first
place? :-)

YMMV, etc.,
-a

Re: cannot access some popular websites from Linode, geolocation is wrong, ARIN is to blame?

[Adam Rothschild]

Constantine,

I'm afraid you might be confusing the NANOG list with
supp...@linode.com (which, incidentally, I've found to be good at
providing timely assistance, more often than not).

In any event, I've found that commercial GeoIP services rely on data
from RIRs and the global routing table a bit less than you'd expect.
I'm not finding any supporting documentation right now, however I
remember reading in their FAQ that harvested website user registration
data was MaxMind's primary source, which makes life particularly fun
when you're a hosting shop with no real eyeball customers to speak
of.  Add to the list of challenges being allocated an aggregate block
from ARIN/RIRs, and the advertising regionalized de-aggregates out of
various datacenters -- itself a relatively common, and sometimes
technically beneficial, practice -- as appears to be happening here
with Linode.

If accuracy matters, I'd suggest that you and/or your provider start
by working individually with MaxMind, Quova (now Neustar?), Google
(who purportedly uses Quova, but sometimes needs a kick to refresh
things), and Akamai.  It would be interesting to see a table of which
large websites get their data from which geolocation provider(s), but
this should give you a good start.

Hope this helps,
-a

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear NANOG@,

 I've had a Linode in Fremont, CA (within 173.230.144.0/20 and
 2600:3c01::/32) for over a year, and, in addition to some development,
 I sometimes use it as an ssh-based personal SOCKS-proxy when
 travelling and having to use any kind of public WiFi.

 Since doing so, I have noticed that most geolocation services think
 that I'm located in NJ (the state of the corporate headquarters of
 Linode), instead of Northern California (where my Linode is physically
 from, and, coincidentally or not, where I also happen to live, hence
 renting a Linode from a very specific location).

 Additionally, it seems like both yelp.com and retailmenot.com block
 the whole 173.230.144.0/20 from their web-sites, returning some
 graphical 403 Forbidden pages instead.

 ...

 I would like to point out that 173.230.144.0/20 and 2600:3c01::/32,
 announced out of AS6939, are allocated by Linode from their own
 ARIN-assigned allocations, 173.230.128.0/19 and 2600:3C00::/30, which
 Linode, in turn with their other ARIN-assigned space, allocates to 4
 of their distinct DCs in the US, in Dallas, Fremont, Atlanta and
 Newark.

 However, Linode does not maintain any individual whois records of
 which DC they announce a given sub-allocation from.  They also do not
 document their IPv6 assignments, either: if one of their customers
 misbehaves, the offended network would have no clue how to block just
 one customer, so, potentially, a whole set of customers may end up
 being blocked, through a wrong prefixlen assumption.


 I've tried contacting Linode in regards to whois, giving an example of
 some other smaller providers (e.g. vr.org) that label their own
 sub-allocations within their ARIN-assigned space to contain an address
 of the DC where the subnet is coming from, and asked whether Linode
 could do the same;  however, Linode informed me that they don't have
 any kind of mail service from the DCs they're at, and that their ARIN
 contact, effectively, said that they're already doing everything right
 in regards not having any extra whois entries with the addresses of
 their DC, since that would actually be wrong, as noone will be
 expecting mail for Linode at those addresses.  (In turn, it's unclear
 whether a much smaller vr.org has mail service at nearly a dozen of
 the DCs that they have their servers at, and which they provide as the
 addresses in ARIN's whois, but I would guess that they do not.)

 This would seem like a possible shortcoming of ARIN's policies and the
 whois database:  with RIPE, every `netname` has a `country` associated
 with it, seemingly without any requirements of a mailing address where
 mail could be received; but with ARIN, no state is ever provided, only
 a mailing address.  (I've also just noticed that RIPE whois now has an
 optional `geoloc` field in addition to the non-optional `country`.)

 Now, back to ARIN:  is Linode doing it right?  Is vr.org doing it
 wrong?  Are they both doing it correct, or are they both wrong?


 And in regards to yelp and retailmenot; why are they blocking Linode
 customers in 173.230.144.0/20?  I've tried contacting both on multiple
 occasions, and have never received any replies from yelp, but
 retailmenot has replied several times with a blanket someone may have
 tried to scrap, spam or proxy our site from this network.  I have
 repeatedly asked retailmenot if they'd block Verizon or ATT if
 someone tries to scrap or spam their web-site from those networks,
 too, but have never received any replies.  I have also tried
 contacting Linode regarding this issue, and although they were very
 patient and tried 

Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers

[Adam Rothschild]

http://www.voxel.net offers web-orderable servers and VMs, with BGP
support (IPv4 and IPv6) available as a paid add-on in all service
locations.

I'm honestly surprised we don't see this supported by more folk in the
space.  The configuration is relatively trivial to automate, with IRR
data generating prefix-list updates, and the customer use cases are
compelling.

HTH,
-a

(disclaimer: biased recommendation)

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:

 Any recommendations of such?


                -Bill


 On May 19, 2012, at 9:20, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:

 On 5/19/12 3:48 AM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
 On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com 
 wrote:
 Was wondering if there's anyone from Server Beach/Peer1 here. We have a
 dedicated server with them which we primarily use for DNS. I am adding
 support for anycasting on that one but seems like Peer1 is not supporting
 BGP at all. NOC support told me that they can announce our block
 and statically pass us but cannot hear BGP announcement from our router.
 Was wondering if someone else had similar issue?

 Generally, most dedicated hosting (renting/leasing the exclusive use
 of a computer in their facility) outfits aren't setup to speak BGP to
 individual servers/customers. Such a request is usually infrequent
 enough that it doesn't warrant setting up the added hardware.



 There are places that can do such requests easily and quickly, but
 they're typically smaller outfits that don't have thousands of customers
 doing cookie-cutter packages.

 ~Seth

Re: BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

[Adam Rothschild]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:02 PM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and att customer service has
 been exceedingly unhelpful only telling me no service available, we have
 no idea when services will become available, check back periodically.
 I would atleast like to get an answer that theres no available capacity,
 its over the 18k limit of dsl, or some other logical answer. Is there
 anyone at bellsouth/att or one of their clec's who can help me do some
 qual's and hopefully also help get this delivered?

A number of folk on this list have access to their loop qualification
database, myself included.

Your street address is an important factor in determining eligibility,
and unfortunately lacking from your post.

HTH,
-a

Re: Customer Notification System.

[Adam Rothschild]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, James Wininger jwinin...@ifncom.net wrote:
 We are a smaller ISP in Indiana. We are growing quite rapidly (yeah for
 us). We have a need for a customer notification system. We have simply
 out grown the ability to send emails to our customers manually. We need
 to have a better way of notifying our customers of maintenance etc.

Seconding the earlier recommendation, mailchimp is a great tool.  Good
interface aside, there is strong operational benefit to being able to
issue notices completely out of band.

 We would need to send notifications out to say about 400 customers.
 Ideally the system would send an attached PDF [...]

If you're going to do this, please be sure to send a copy of the
notice inline as plain text too.  Your customers on smartphones, using
assistive technology, or automatically piping vendor notices into
calendaring/ticketing systems will thank you.  :-)

HTH,
-a

Re: local_preference for transit traffic?

[Adam Rothschild]

I've had similar experiences to Mr. Petach.

Depending on order of operations, you can look at this from a
different prospective as well -- why go with a soulless entity for
your transit (or transport, collocation, ...) requirements, when you
can keep it in the family and engage a peer who already understands
your service model and is committed to maintaining mutual benefit?

Indeed, the old adage of once a customer, never a peer could never be wronger.

-a

Re: Colocation providers and ACL requests

[Adam Rothschild]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Kevin Loch kl...@kl.net wrote:
 We have always accommodated temporary ACL's for active DDOS attacks.  I
 think that is fairly standard across the ISP/hosting industry.

Indeed.  We'll do it; ditto every reputable hosting, collocation, or
IP transit shop I've come into contact with.

 And it's reasonable to accomodate the customer that asks, and
 reasonable for a customer to ask for
 a temporary ACL in such situations.

 However, it's also reasonable for the provider to refuse,  and there's
 nothing wrong with that, unless the provider agreed that they would be
 willing to do that [...]

Disagree.  Furthermore, I think providers refusing to implement
temporary ACLs should be called out on fora such as NANOG, to aid
others in the vendor selection process.

This is not to say it's sustainable as a repeat or permanent
configuration -- possible up-sell and business drivers aside, TCAM
exhaustion, performance implications, and man-hours required for ACL
maintenance are all very real concerns -- but denying your customers
this type of emergency response is bad for the Internet, and goes
against basic tenets of customer service.

-a

Re: L3 announces new peering policy

[Adam Rothschild]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
 Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?

What's changed is the introduction of bit miles as a means of
calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been
used.  Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier:

 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818

What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as
a result of the new policy (I can think of several smaller global
networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just
posturing on Level 3's part.  The next few months will be interesting
for sure...

-a

Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines

[Adam Rothschild]

What are thoughts on public disclosure limited to capacity constraints?

There is ample business reason for making the terms of specific
interconnects private.  On the other hand, knowing definitively that
{mon,du}opoly broadband provider A is running its connections to
transit provider B hot could be in the public interest, and allow
operators to make informed routing decisions.  Bringing these metrics
into the public light might also encourage operators to upgrade more
responsibly, though this could be wishful thinking on my part. :-)

(This is entirely food for thought, I've not yet formed any opinions.)

-a

Level 3 Peering Guidelines

[Adam Rothschild]

I'm sorry to interrupt the discussion of how long is your rack? and
what do you do when your home ISP is down? with something impacting
some folks' cost and manner of selling services, however Level 3 just
published its new peering guidelines, buried in comments on the L3/GX
merger:

  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818

FYI,
-a

Re: Looking for an ATT contact that can update a prefix list

[Adam Rothschild]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Joe Freeman j...@ngn-networks.com wrote:
 If there's an ATT contact on the list, or if anyone knows how to get a
 prefix filter updated, I'd appreciate a response.

You'll want to mail rm-awmis at ems.att.com, following up with a phone
call to +1-888-613-6330,3,2 once you get an auto-responder providing a
ticket number.

 I put in a request for the update yesterday, and even called in to make sure
 they'd do it, but it's apparently not done yet, and I've had a customer down
 for hours waiting on it.

These requests typically took a couple of weeks to process, with no
support for IRR or other automation.

(fair warning: this data is several years old, and might be dated)

-a

_
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

[Adam Rothschild]

Also absent from this discussion is that the RIRs are still issuing
address space, and interface addressing is perfectly reasonable
justification.

-a

Re: VPN tunnels between US and China dropping/slow

[Adam Rothschild]

Realize also that China Telecom is congested both internally and on
certain peering interfaces.

While DPI is a likely culprit, be sure to not overlook a good
old-fashioned inability to manage capacity, combined with certain
hashing algorithms...

-a

Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too?

[Adam Rothschild]

We (voxel.net, AS 29791) offer dual-stack on all server and cloud
products.  As others have pointed out, SoftLayer is an excellent
example of a hosting provider that Gets It on a large scale.

Sadly, v6 support on popular cloud-only services is suspiciously
absent.  Terremark vCoudExpress, Savvis, Amazon EC2, among others
don't support it today, or on any public roadmaps...

-a

Re: DSL options in NYC for OOB access

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2011-01-24-17:04:25, Andy Ashley li...@nexus6.co.za wrote:
 Im looking for a little advice about DSL circuits in New York, 
 specifically at 111 8th Ave [...]

You can get a CLEAR WiMAX fixed modem with static IP address for $50
(USD) monthly, or less if you opt for the low-bandwidth plan.

Unscientific testing shows there's good coverage throughout most of
the building, and no obvious shared risks from an IP or transport
prospective.  As an added bonus, you won't have any cross-connect opex
to worry about.  :-)

HTH,
-a

Re: C/D[WDM]

[Adam Rothschild]

+1 on the CUBO recommendation.  In addition to muxes, we've worked
with them as a supplier of (Finisar) colored optics; our dealings have
been extremely favorable on all fronts.

-a

Re: C/D[WDM]

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2010-12-22-19:44:31, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
 Yes, sorry I should've specified 10Gig-E and I would like to avoid
 using CWDM/DWDM optics if possible I would just like to use regular LR
 optics.

The common misconception is that, just because you're not installing
colored optics directly in your router, something similar doesn't live
elsewhere in your system, mingled with a number of OEO conversions.
Neat packaging and pretty GUI is orthogonal to cheap, and you stated
both as initial requirements, so you're probably best choosing one or
the other.  We may differ on levels of frugality, however I can't
think of any active system I'd classify as cheap; at the base,
you're looking at a 2x multiplier from something assembled with cubes,
however you slice it...

If you find yourself stuck with SFP+ interfaces, or partners who don't
grok this stuff and require a conventional LR hand-off, perhaps a
2xXFP transponder is really what you're after -- feed your mux with
the colored optics, and the other end with some LR (or SR, CX4, ...).
MRV has some good products in this space.

HTH,
-a

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote:
 Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
 their data centers and their customers costs nothing.  It's not free
 to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).

I don't see how this point, however valid, should factor into the
discussion.  Missing from this thread is that Comcast's topology and
economics for hauling bits between a neutral collocation facility and
broadband subscriber are the _same_ whether they ingest traffic by way
of a settlement-free peer, customer, or paid transit connection.

Speaking to Richard's earlier observations, we too have run into
issues attempting to deliver content by way of Comcast's Tata transit,
dating back to July of this year.  (It's possible the issues might
have begun sooner, however this is as far back as our analytics go.
I've actually been spending some time documenting how we've been
measuring this loss, and how folk might measure it on their production
infrastructure utilizing policy routing, routing-instances, and the
like -- any interested content folk are welcome to contact me
off-list.  Suffice it to say, configs are the easy part, the hard part
is building a statistically valid sample set without degrading
connectivity for paying customers...)

Whatever the cause, five months should be ample time to turn up some
additional transit capacity or otherwise work around the issues; we're
talking commodity transit ports in neutral facilities, such as Equinix
sites, after all.

What we have here is Comcast holding its users captive, plain and
simple.  They have established an ecosystem where, to reach them, one
must pay to play, otherwise there's a good chance that packets are
discarded.  Alternate paths simply aren't there, given the no-export
communities deployed.  As it stands, I could multi-home to NTT, Telia,
Tata, and XO, and still get stuck with no good paths to Comcast.
While this has happened before (see: DTAG, FT, ...), this is probably
the first we've seen it occur in the United States, at scale.  Folk in
content/hosting should find this all more than a little bit scary.

-a

Re: v6 bgp peer costs?

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2010-07-21-15:08:10, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
 I currently have a v4 BGP session with AS 701 and recently requested a v6
 BGP session to which I was told a tunnel session will be provided (Same
 circuit would be better but whatever!). Towards the final stage in
 discussions I was told that it will cost $1500. I find this quite ridiculous
 and it will certainly not motivate people to move to v6 if providers put a
 direct price tag on it. I am going through a bandwidth reseller though so I
 am not sure who is trying to jack me here. Has anyone here gone through a
 similar experience?

You're certainly not in the minority.

The practice of charging for v6 service (I've seen it represented as a
MRC, NRC, and/or per-mb premium) seems partly rooted in a desire to
gouge unsuspecting customers, and partly an honest misunderstanding of
an organization's change processes and systems (is v6 considered a
change request?  New order?)...

Whatever the situation, the correct response is to demand native
connectivity at no charge, or else walk away at the expiration of your
contract.  Tunnels are messy now, and stand to become a lot messier as
content adaptation and overall traffic volumes increase.

-a

Re: XO feedback

[Adam Rothschild]

Here in the New York Metro, XO's collocation offering is pretty solid.
No frills, but competently managed, and offered under a reasonable
pricing model for retail collocation.

I've had similarly positive experiences with their transport side of
the house.  I've not looked at the IP product...

I certainly belive the negative XO feedback shared; having heard
similar, it would seem there's definite potential to be treated as
merely a number.  At the same time, our experience has been great, and
I'd happily recommend them.  I think the quality of your XO customer
experience is directly proportional to the caliber of your account
team, along with your ability to vendor-manage and assemble a suitable
escalation matrix.

As for the Savvis suggestion, I'm not sure I'd agree.  We're in 2010,
yet they continue to maintain a fair number of gigabit-sized peering
interfaces, seemingly operating at or close to capacity.

HTH,
-a

Re: nyc glass

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2010-05-14-03:59:33, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
 anyone have reccos for fiber
   from 60 hudson
   to   454 broadway

From a cursory look at POP and GIS data not covered by NDA, I'm not
finding any vendors currently built into 454 Broadway.  The usual
suspects for dark in the area include AboveNet, Lightower, and Lexent
(Hugh O'Kane), all amenable to build jobs for the right opportunity...

HTH,
-a

Re: XO Communications rDNS

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2010-04-07-14:50:14, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
 I manage some IP space that's provided by an ISP but is owned by XO. I 
 am trying to have rDNS configured but their contact email 
 (ipad...@eng.xo.com) in the whois does not grace me with a response (yet).
 
 Does anyone know if there is a way to get this done or should I just not 
 bother and live with it?

This would be submitted by the XO customer directly.  The Business
Center portal[1] is generally the best place to submit such change
requests, with follow-up correspondence by telephone, as necessary.

With that said, it would seem XO decided to stop maintaining PTR
records for backbone devices, instead opting for the more generic
'x.x.x.x.ptr.xo.net' (where x.x.x.x is an interface's IP address)
naming convention.

HTH,
-a

[1] https://bc.xo.com/Registration/Login.aspx

Re: Tishman Neutral Exchange space

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2009-11-25-09:42:29, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
 There is a new carrier neutral exchange space opening up December 1st
 at 165 Halsey in Newark, NJ. This space will be operated by Tishman  
 Hotel  Realty LP :
 
 http://www.datacentermap.com/usa/new-jersey/newark/165-halsey.html
 
 I am thinking of moving into there and I would be curious to hear  
 feedback from
 anyone with experience in being in a Tishman operated exchange space.

I've not seen the finished product, though I am familiar with its
development.  This is basically an annex of the building's meet-me
area on the 9th floor.

Depending on your specific reach objectives and density, you might
find that a successful deployment in this building hinges on a build
to both the Equinix suite on 8 (which is rich in carriers), and the
MMR 9 (which has fewer carriers, but has some not built out to 8, and
more favorable economics on cross-connection when amortized over a
multi-year term).

I hold a high regard for the building and its landlord as a whole.
Just be careful at night...

-a

Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2009-11-08-10:23:41, Blake Pfankuch bpfank...@cpgreeley.com wrote:
 Make sure they operate their own network for last mile
[...]
 I wouldn't sway from the big names for your primary connections
 either.

Because ownership of the provider/subsidiary delivering the last mile
means one hand is talking to the other, and you're going to get good
service and reliability as a result?  And big names never have any
peering-related spats and always deliver the best possible end-user
experience, right? :-)

(Some good points further on, though important we don't lead the OP
down the wrong path or with a false sense of security there...)

-a

Re: Need a clueful Telia AS1299 engineer

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2009-10-22-16:19:53, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
 Could a clueful AS1299 engineer please drop me a line? Dealing with
 the Level 0 technicians that are offered to IC clients is completely
 useless in diagnosing a rather serious issue.

r...@telia.net is a good place for routing/policy-related inquiries, or
carrier-...@teliasonera.com for more time-sensitive issues.  Both can
provide a quick escalation path to clue and enable.

I've amassed some individual contacts from being a customer, which I'd
be happy to share off-list...

-a

Re: BGP Growth projections

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2009-07-12-06:09:12, Arie Vayner arievay...@gmail.com wrote:
 Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the small ISP
 requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a
 limited view with a default route.

Disagree.  Protection against big-provider depeerings, interdomain
capacity problems, etc is increasingly relevant to smaller sites
interested in getting business done.  While some will outsource this
protection their (non-transit-free) provider, others enjoy maintaining
this granularity of control themselves...

-a

Re: OEMs for X2 10G LAN PHY optics

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2009-07-10-14:21:49, Duane Waddle duane.wad...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am searching for opinions on OEMs of X2 form factor 10G LAN PHY
 optics.  We've found that most router/switch vendors  mark these
 particular items up significantly just to provide their own
 sticker/EEPROM ID.  As such, we'd prefer if we can to procure from the
 OEM (or their reseller).  Is this a situation where any company who's
 a signatory to the MSA produces suitable modules, or are there
 particular OEMs to prefer (or avoid)?
 
 If it matters, the prime platform we're looking to plug optics into is
 the WS-X6708-10G module for a 6500/7600.

I'd suggest looking at FluxLight (www.fluxlightinc.com) for this.
Their sales and support process is nothing short of stellar, and
pricing is a fair medium between paying too much for vendor optics
and fly-by-night eBay imports.

To wit, all of their products Just Worked without ever needing Cisco's
infamous 'service unsupported-transceiver' vendor lock override.

-a

Re: BGP Growth projections

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2009-07-10-12:42:24, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
[...]
 What projections are you using regarding the default free zone over the 
 next 5 years when picking new hardware?  

Geoff Huston, et al provide some useful trending:

  http://bgp.potaroo.net/index-bgp.html

With that said, I've been treating hardware forwarding of 1MM v4
prefixes (or equivalent CAM carving of v6, MPLS, ...) as a minimum
requirement for Internet-facing routers with a five-year shelf life.

Platforms claiming in the 500-600k range seem prohibitive just
tracking current v4 prefix growth, and moreso as v6 adaptation
increases and end-users begin to realize that v4 and v6 routing is
fundamentally the same, and begin to de-aggregate/advertise v6 space
just like they do v4...

-a

Re: So I've got this 2.5gig wave, what do I do with it?

[Adam Rothschild]

As Facebook might caution us, it's complicated.  

It's not uncommon for a 2.5G wave to be protocol-agnostic most of the
way through, and then required to pass through a SONET/SDH framer at
the end...

You've be well-served to find somebody at your carrier clued on their
transport platform, or absent that, able to read off the configuration
options their shiny OSS GUI provides.  If you could shed some light on
who the carrier is, chances are they've got a customer or two on the
list able to provide some implementation specifics.

The silver lining in this all is nobody's buying 2.5G wave service,
and as such, there's a plethora of cheap hardware options on the
secondary market able to handle the requisite circuit emulation and/or
packet forwarding -- Cisco 15454/GSR/OSM, Turin, Juniper routers with
I-1OC48-SON-SMIR and P-1GE-SX-Bs -- choose your poison.  (Easier
still, albeit far less fun, upgrade to a 10G {LAN,WAN}-PHY interface
for a couple pennies more. :-)

HTH,
-a

Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at 
 work [...]

This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific
organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go down.
End-site multihoming in some form or fashion is a growing requirement,
and folk thinking otherwise need to get their heads out of sand.

If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom in
end users connecting to (or purchasing CDN services from) members
of the tier 1 club directly.

-a

Re: rackmount managed PDUs

[Adam Rothschild]

Another vote for APC here.  We've deployed many hundreds in various
receptacle configurations, and n'er any failures.  The build quality
is definite cut above the competition, some with interiors that look
like they were assembled from duct tape and Radio Shack kits. :-)

As a word to the wise once you make it past the purchasing stage, the
software and IP stack is a bit fragile.  No show-stoppers, mind you,
just some items here and there which underscore the need for a proper
management infrastructure and OSS.

(For starters, you'll want to make sure you're running the latest
firmware, as outlets and entire SNMP OID trees have been known to
'vanish' on earlier builds.  Make sure they're ACLed tightly, as even
the smallest amount of stray packets or concurrent access will make
the unit unhappy.  And if you need to provide remote reboot
functionality to customers, create your own interface, or consider one
the off-the-shelf solutions, Ubersmith DE being a popular choice,
given the above constraints...)

-a

Re: favourite XFP supplier?

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2008-09-22-15:01:35, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Anybody have a preferred supplier for 10GE XFPs, multimode and  
 singlemode?

Fluxlight (www.fluxlightinc.com) is good source for 10GBASE-SR and LR
XFPs.  They tend to keep an inventory, often able to ship on the day
of order; their web store works; they run a reputable shop, and are
fully understanding of I'll need a tracking number ASAP, otherwise
the facility you're sending them to might reject the shipment -- all
in all, a real win.

If you have a Dell Premier account, you might want to check there, as
they usually have XFPs listed at steep discount...

If you're looking for exotics, such as ZR-D (DWDM), going with a
Finisar reseller is a safe bet.  I've had particularly good dealings
with Cube Optics AG.  (Fair warning: these are tougher to source on
short notice.)

HTH,
-a

Re: [Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community

[Adam Rothschild]

On 2008-03-02-18:05:11, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Folks, I'm seeking some commentary on the following document that may
 help us to make incremental improvements in the operation of the
 mailing list.
 
 http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf

For those of us following along at home, could you please explain the
differences between this policy and what was presented in San Jose[1],
if any?  Is this PDF something put together by the MLC for community
review, or something more casual in nature?

Perhaps a bit disturbing is the part about permanently suspending a
disruptive sender's posting privileges.  I think I'd rather this
remain a 6 (12?) month deal, even if it means you'll need to go
through the motions to habitually re-ban some folk.

In any event, I appreciate your putting this together in coherent
written form and getting the dialogue going.

-a

[1] http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0802/presentations/community-pilosov.pdf

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures