subject:"Re\: COVID\-19 vs. our Networks"

On 21/Mar/20 14:43, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

>  
>
> I tend to agree - I dont think there is any capacity problem in the
> core network or server platforms, including netflix.  I do not see it
> for my part as of now.  I am an end user, not a Network sysadmin.
>
> I heard about EU measures to attenuate such a problem tha tmight
> arrive - I think it is mis-informed.
>
> I also heard EC (European COmmission) looking to push all efforts in
> robotics, how could robotics help this, several ideas like drones, or
> the open source respiratory device, or why not sending a robot do
> shopping for me.  I think these look far fetched but are promissing.

Business models were always changing. What the Coronavirus has done is
amplify and accelerate those transitions.

The thing is even after the Coronavirus pandemic is solved, businesses
are going to have to adapt to new operating models in this new digital
economy. Unfortunately, many are going to assume that it was only
necessary for the period of the pandemic, and will want to revert to
their traditional ways of doing things prior to the outbreak once all
the dust settles. I empathize with those businesses.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks



On 21/Mar/20 13:53, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Unless the IX or OCA feed goes to the DSLAM, node, tower...  no.

Not sure what you mean.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 21/Mar/20 23:37, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

>
> My remarks weren't about Netflix or any other particular service.
> (FWIW, I agree with you on both quoted points about the lack of
> evidence.  Maybe it'll arrive.  Maybe it won't.)
>
> I was trying to speak, perhaps unsuccessfully, in broader terms about
> trying to best position ourselves for challenges that we may not
> see coming despite the aggregated millenia of expertise here.  I think
> at this particular point in time we need to be ready for anything,
> for a very nebulous and possibly quite surprising value of "anything".

I would, generally, file that under "Why we get up everyday" :-).

The folk over in IT are probably dealing with plenty of noise about
VPN's and cybersecurity things as folk work more from home than usual.

If backbones begin to flutter and last miles start to screech, I'm
certain this group will be woken from its slumber.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-21 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 04:42:51AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> All I'm saying is at the moment, there is no empirical information to
> suggest that Netflix will break what's left of the Internet. Nor is
> there any empirical information suggesting that singling them out will
> help keep it going.

My remarks weren't about Netflix or any other particular service.
(FWIW, I agree with you on both quoted points about the lack of
evidence.  Maybe it'll arrive.  Maybe it won't.)

I was trying to speak, perhaps unsuccessfully, in broader terms about
trying to best position ourselves for challenges that we may not
see coming despite the aggregated millenia of expertise here.  I think
at this particular point in time we need to be ready for anything,
for a very nebulous and possibly quite surprising value of "anything".

---rsk

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 21/Mar/20 13:28, Florian Weimer wrote:

>
> 4K isn't supported by all devices and plans.  I'm not sure what kind
> of savings you can actually realize there.  It could be that 4K
> content isn't worth caching near the edge.  Then ditching 4K could
> still have a significant effect despite relatively low usage by
> subscribers.  Similarly anything that reduces content diversity (like
> serving only one category of 1080p streams).

In South Africa, the majority of the population does not own 4K-capable
TV's.

Also, most people do not have access to FTTH services. And for many that
do, having a 25Mbps slot lying around for 4K Netflix is even less common.

That said, a recent survey in the country indicated that the majority of
Netflix subscribers that were polled subscribed to the 4K package. It
wasn't clear whether what they actually wanted as 4K capability or the
ability to support 4 simultaneous streams. Personally, I suspect the latter.

>   Reportedly, the issue is
> backhaul capacity for some CDN nodes in Europe, and not capacity from
> the local cache to the subscriber, but I do not have any direct
> knowledge of that.

It could go either way, but the reason the cache-fill theory is one I do
not necessarily think will create a bottleneck is because Netflix push
content to OCA's or public clusters during off-peak times.

Pressure is more likely to be placed on the edge and the last mile, if
that; but that comes back to why the customers want to spend their own
money, and not having Command & Control tell them how, or why.

Mark.

Fwd: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-21 Thread Alexandre Petrescu


(photo removed, the admins have it, dont ask me in private)



 Message transféré 
Sujet : Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
Date :  Sat, 21 Mar 2020 14:20:56 +0100
De :Alexandre Petrescu 
Pour :  nanog@nanog.org




LF/HF

Le 21/03/2020 à 12:28, Florian Weimer a écrit :

* Mike Hammett:

[...]
Relaxing copyright and patent restrictions might also help, at least
in the medium term.


I agree.

Related to copyright and patent restrictions, is this:

Currently the situation is that I cant get to see the ARN (acid rybo  
nucleic) sequence of this virus; the data is present on gisaid.org, 
situated in Germany, at MAx Planck Institute, but my request to see it 
did not succeed - silence.


FRiends tell me that silence is normal because I am not a specialist, 
and those who are specialist do have access.


I disagree.  I want to know what it looks like.  This virus with a crown 
might hurt me as much as it might hurt the specialists, there is no 
difference, we are all Sapiens.


I want to know what it looks like.

The only thing I could find is during a TV news report, see below.

That sequence of A, T, G, C, and their particular ordering, is what 
makes it bad bad.  That's the enemy.


Alex, LF/HF 2 (it means low stress)

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-21 Thread Alexandre Petrescu


Le 21/03/2020 à 03:42, Mark Tinka a écrit :


On 20/Mar/20 19:38, Rich Kulawiec wrote:


+100.

In all the decades that I've been here (on the 'nets), the saddest change
I've seen is the lack of responsibility on the part of people who have,
by virtue of their positions, been given incredible power.  This is the
time for those people to step up and (try to) do the right thing.

None of us know what's going to be needed.  How could we?  We could guess,
and we *are* guessing, but we don't really know because we're sailing
off the edge of the map now.

In those circumstances, the virtue of frugality -- a sensible thing
at any time -- now becomes a necessity.  Every single one of us should
be doing whatever we can to prepare for the unknown, and conserving
resources is one part of that.

"Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist.
Everything we do after will seem inadequate."
--- Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary

As I write this, doctors and nurses are working without PPE, risking
their own wellbeing to try to save patients.  We're not being asked
to do anything like that.  Hopefully we still have enough left to rise
to the comparatively minor challenge in front of us.

All I'm saying is at the moment, there is no empirical information to
suggest that Netflix will break what's left of the Internet. Nor is
there any empirical information suggesting that singling them out will
help keep it going.



I tend to agree - I dont think there is any capacity problem in the core 
network or server platforms, including netflix.  I do not see it for my 
part as of now.  I am an end user, not a Network sysadmin.


I heard about EU measures to attenuate such a problem tha tmight arrive 
- I think it is mis-informed.


I also heard EC (European COmmission) looking to push all efforts in 
robotics, how could robotics help this, several ideas like drones, or 
the open source respiratory device, or why not sending a robot do 
shopping for me.  I think these look far fetched but are promissing.


Alex, LF/HF 2 (means low stress)




If we go down this path, who's to say which service provider will or
won't be "targeted" next at the whim of some command & control policy
maker? Is it a rabbit hole whose top-soil we want to uncover?
  
If/when the network starts to take a hit, network operators will

respond. But if there is any operator on this list who is willing to
raise their hands and say, "Netflix is breaking my network",
uncongested, free-flowing beer on me when we all come out from the bunkers.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-21 Thread Mike Hammett

Unless the IX or OCA feed goes to the DSLAM, node, tower... no. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:22:45 PM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 




On 20/Mar/20 15:52, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable. 



I think that's case specific on the type of network you have built, and whether 
your feed your customers Netflix content with on on-site OCA or via an exchange 
point or transit link. 

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-21 Thread Florian Weimer

* Mike Hammett:

> Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for
> HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice
> and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video
> conferencing, etc.

4K isn't supported by all devices and plans.  I'm not sure what kind
of savings you can actually realize there.  It could be that 4K
content isn't worth caching near the edge.  Then ditching 4K could
still have a significant effect despite relatively low usage by
subscribers.  Similarly anything that reduces content diversity (like
serving only one category of 1080p streams).  Reportedly, the issue is
backhaul capacity for some CDN nodes in Europe, and not capacity from
the local cache to the subscriber, but I do not have any direct
knowledge of that.

Relaxing copyright and patent restrictions might also help, at least
in the medium term.

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Keith Medcalf



On Friday, 20 March, 2020 20:43, Mark Tinka  wrote:

>If we go down this path, who's to say which service provider will or
>won't be "targeted" next at the whim of some command & control policy
>maker? Is it a rabbit hole whose top-soil we want to uncover?

Perhaps the "advertizing" and "JavaScript" should be banned from websites 
first.  That would have more effect than fiddling with streaming media services.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 20/Mar/20 19:38, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> +100.
>
> In all the decades that I've been here (on the 'nets), the saddest change
> I've seen is the lack of responsibility on the part of people who have,
> by virtue of their positions, been given incredible power.  This is the
> time for those people to step up and (try to) do the right thing.
>
> None of us know what's going to be needed.  How could we?  We could guess,
> and we *are* guessing, but we don't really know because we're sailing
> off the edge of the map now.
>
> In those circumstances, the virtue of frugality -- a sensible thing
> at any time -- now becomes a necessity.  Every single one of us should
> be doing whatever we can to prepare for the unknown, and conserving
> resources is one part of that.
>
>   "Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist.
>   Everything we do after will seem inadequate."
>   --- Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary
>
> As I write this, doctors and nurses are working without PPE, risking
> their own wellbeing to try to save patients.  We're not being asked
> to do anything like that.  Hopefully we still have enough left to rise
> to the comparatively minor challenge in front of us.

All I'm saying is at the moment, there is no empirical information to
suggest that Netflix will break what's left of the Internet. Nor is
there any empirical information suggesting that singling them out will
help keep it going.

If we go down this path, who's to say which service provider will or
won't be "targeted" next at the whim of some command & control policy
maker? Is it a rabbit hole whose top-soil we want to uncover?

If/when the network starts to take a hit, network operators will
respond. But if there is any operator on this list who is willing to
raise their hands and say, "Netflix is breaking my network",
uncongested, free-flowing beer on me when we all come out from the bunkers.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 20/Mar/20 17:00, Mike Hammett wrote:

>
> Perhaps if more entities tried to be responsible instead of entitled,
> the Internet wouldn't be as bad as it is?

I half agree with your last sentence.

More entities don't need to be entitled (which I don't think Netflix
are, to be clear), but they need to listen to customers and offer them
value (not product).

Customers have never been more in the driver's seat in this new economy
than ever before. They will quickly show you how irrelevant you are to them.

Whatever move(s) Netflix or the command & control policy people make
here, customers will respond accordingly.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 20/Mar/20 16:15, Mike Hammett wrote:
> It's one of those most important things that matters.
>
> The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p.
> They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
>
> The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc.
> will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
>
>
> Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient.
> They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the
> Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse
> most other usages on the Internet.
>
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
>
> Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD.
> That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and
> would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video
> conferencing, etc.

Considering that the telecoms sector is one of the most traveled group
of professional people around the world, on a 12-month basis, that would
mean all the meetings we hold, each week, somewhere in the world,
racking up air miles galore, was a total waste of time if it's all
reduced to this.

Don't let your Finance departments read this thread - they'll just cut
your travel budgets :-).

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 20/Mar/20 15:52, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services
> that aren't as adaptable.

I think that's case specific on the type of network you have built, and
whether your feed your customers Netflix content with on on-site OCA or
via an exchange point or transit link.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks



On 20/Mar/20 15:51, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Why in the world would they do that?
>
> Maybe waive the fees for the higher services, but you're not entitled
> to anything more than that.

Users will pay for value.

If users don't see value, they will respond accordingly.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 20/Mar/20 15:32, Blake Hudson wrote:

>
>
> Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase
> in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix
> automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the
> only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of
> any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go
> unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a
> technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision
> made out of fear or panic.

Yep - the command & control culture.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:00:15AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Because they're trying to be a responsible Internet citizen instead of just 
> telling everyone else to bugger off. 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if more entities tried to be responsible instead of entitled, the 
> Internet wouldn't be as bad as it is? 

+100.

In all the decades that I've been here (on the 'nets), the saddest change
I've seen is the lack of responsibility on the part of people who have,
by virtue of their positions, been given incredible power.  This is the
time for those people to step up and (try to) do the right thing.

None of us know what's going to be needed.  How could we?  We could guess,
and we *are* guessing, but we don't really know because we're sailing
off the edge of the map now.

In those circumstances, the virtue of frugality -- a sensible thing
at any time -- now becomes a necessity.  Every single one of us should
be doing whatever we can to prepare for the unknown, and conserving
resources is one part of that.

"Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist.
Everything we do after will seem inadequate."
--- Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary

As I write this, doctors and nurses are working without PPE, risking
their own wellbeing to try to save patients.  We're not being asked
to do anything like that.  Hopefully we still have enough left to rise
to the comparatively minor challenge in front of us.

---rsk

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to do so for people that are not 
likely to be persuaded to change their position. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Keith Medcalf"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 10:35:57 AM 
Subject: RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

On Friday, 20 March, 2020 07:52, Mike Hammett  wrote: 

>Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services 
>that aren't as adaptable. 

Can you explain why you think that is Netflix problem? 

I should think that it is a problem being experienced by persons who 
deliberately chose to accept the risk that Internet congestion may be a problem 
for the path upon which they have deliberately chosen to embark. That Risk 
might now come to fruition and those persons should be activating their 
pre-planned mitigation. If their pre-planned mitigation was "well, Netflix can 
shut down", then they had (hopefully) defective mitigation planning. Perhaps in 
the future they will do a better job of assessing Risk and mitigating that 
Risk. 

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Keith Medcalf

On Friday, 20 March, 2020 07:52, Mike Hammett  wrote:

>Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services
>that aren't as adaptable.

Can you explain why you think that is Netflix problem?

I should think that it is a problem being experienced by persons who 
deliberately chose to accept the risk that Internet congestion may be a problem 
for the path upon which they have deliberately chosen to embark.  That Risk 
might now come to fruition and those persons should be activating their 
pre-planned mitigation.  If their pre-planned mitigation was "well, Netflix can 
shut down", then they had (hopefully) defective mitigation planning.  Perhaps 
in the future they will do a better job of assessing Risk and mitigating that 
Risk.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Tom Beecher

;>> That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would
>>> make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Blake Hudson" 
>>> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
>>> *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
>>>
>>> Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link,
>>> Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates
>>> down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses
>>> a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad
>>> wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really
>>> efficient and really conscientious compared to others.
>>>
>>> On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services
>>> that aren't as adaptable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Blake Hudson"  
>>> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
>>> *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>>> >> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the
>>> >> next month or two.
>>> > Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K,
>>> > 1080p and 720p.
>>> >
>>> > If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers
>>> to
>>> > use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
>>> >
>>> > Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
>>> >
>>> > Mark.
>>>
>>> Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase
>>> in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix
>>> automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the
>>> only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any
>>> congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go
>>> unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a
>>> technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision
>>> made out of fear or panic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Have you heard of the Patriot Act? Tom is correct that this does set a 
precedent of suppressing freedom of speech (I realize this is not a 
right in the EU like it is in US). "They that can give up essential 
liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty 
nor safety."



On 3/20/2020 10:10 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote:


"It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set
a dangerous precedent."


Can we stop with this talk... around everything? We're literally 
living through an unprecedented event right now. My 86 year old 
grandmother said she's never seen anything like this in the US. My 
friends 94 year old grandmother in Italy said she hasn't seen this 
since WWII. Nobody is going to say "Well we did this during a global 
pandemic so we can now do it because we feel like it". People will 
laugh them out of the room. I live in Phoenix, the mayor shut down 
bars and restaurants (carryout only) in order to help stop us from 
becoming Italy. One of our city councilmen was saying the same thing: 
"This is martial law and sets bad precedent! We must open everything 
up!" Of course, they then held a closed to the public meeting because 
city council can't be exposed. The point is, the mayor isn't going to 
do the same thing in six months on a whim because traffic on the 
freeway is bad. Thankfully calmer heads prevailed and the rest of the 
council told him to pound sand, at least for now.


Something that keeps happening on this mailing list over the last few 
weeks is this tendency to try to take the "Moral high ground". And 
from way up there people are looking at the whole topic from an 
idealistic point of view like we live in some Network Operators Utopia 
with perfect conditions where money doesn't exist and we can do 
whatever we want because there is no upper management. We should be 
having a practical conversation that sits within the confines of 
reality. We don't have perfect networks built. We don't have unlimited 
resources. We are facing a global pandemic. Money is tight. In 
principle, I agree with what you guys are saying. But in reality, 
we're going to have to bend our convictions in order to protect 
populations from COVID-19. You will be changing your tune when your 
mother is sick and can't get the care she needs because the system is 
overwhelmed because we (communities, not just network operators) 
didn't do what was necessary because of some idealistic hard line 
people drew in the sand.


- Mike Bolitho

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Mike Bolitho

>
> "It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a
> dangerous precedent."
>

Can we stop with this talk... around everything? We're literally living
through an unprecedented event right now. My 86 year old grandmother said
she's never seen anything like this in the US. My friends 94 year old
grandmother in Italy said she hasn't seen this since WWII. Nobody is going
to say "Well we did this during a global pandemic so we can now do it
because we feel like it". People will laugh them out of the room. I live in
Phoenix, the mayor shut down bars and restaurants (carryout only) in order
to help stop us from becoming Italy. One of our city councilmen was saying
the same thing: "This is martial law and sets bad precedent! We must open
everything up!" Of course, they then held a closed to the public meeting
because city council can't be exposed. The point is, the mayor isn't going
to do the same thing in six months on a whim because traffic on the freeway
is bad. Thankfully calmer heads prevailed and the rest of the council told
him to pound sand, at least for now.

Something that keeps happening on this mailing list over the last few weeks
is this tendency to try to take the "Moral high ground". And from way up
there people are looking at the whole topic from an idealistic point of
view like we live in some Network Operators Utopia with perfect conditions
where money doesn't exist and we can do whatever we want because there is
no upper management. We should be having a practical conversation that sits
within the confines of reality. We don't have perfect networks built. We
don't have unlimited resources. We are facing a global pandemic. Money is
tight. In principle, I agree with what you guys are saying. But in reality,
we're going to have to bend our convictions in order to protect populations
from COVID-19. You will be changing your tune when your mother is sick and
can't get the care she needs because the system is overwhelmed because we
(communities, not just network operators) didn't do what was
necessary because of some idealistic hard line people drew in the sand.

- Mike Bolitho

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:44 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a
> dangerous precedent.
>
> If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an
> emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after
> this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and
> adding on "well it's an emergency to me!".
>
> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
>> aren't as adaptable.
>>
>
> And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action
> to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other
> applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have
> a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat
> the bits differently?
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> It's one of those most important things that matters.
>>
>> The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They
>> also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
>>
>> The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will
>> very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
>>
>>
>> Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're
>> also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small
>> changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on
>> the Internet.
>>
>> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
>>
>> Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's
>> a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a
>> big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channe

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Because they're trying to be a responsible Internet citizen instead of just 
telling everyone else to bugger off. 

Perhaps if more entities tried to be responsible instead of entitled, the 
Internet wouldn't be as bad as it is? 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Tom Beecher"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Blake Hudson" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:41:49 AM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous 
precedent. 

If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an 
emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this 
crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on 
"well it's an emergency to me!". 

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable. 

And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to 
ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications 
be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net 
neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits 
differently? 

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 

It's one of those most important things that matters. 

The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also 
aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other. 

The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very 
much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds. 

Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also 
one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in 
usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet. 

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 

Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x 
difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big 
difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

From: "Blake Hudson" < bl...@ispn.net > 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs 
at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent 
congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, 
I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's 
unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious 
compared to others. 

On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

From: "Blake Hudson"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> 
> On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote: 
>> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the 
>> next month or two. 
> Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 
> 1080p and 720p. 
> 
> If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to 
> use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else? 
> 
> Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now? 
> 
> Mark. 

Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase 
in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix 
automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the 
only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any 
congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go 
unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a 
technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision 
made out of fear or panic.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Tom Beecher

I think people can tell the difference just fine.

But get lawyers involved on what the word 'emergency' means, then watch the
fun.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:47 AM Mel Beckman  wrote:

>
> If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an
> emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after
> this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and
> adding on "well it's an emergency to me!"
>
>
> Well, that’s a silly argument. Do you think people can’t tell the
> difference between a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and somebody who’s having
> a “personal emergency”?
>
>  -mel
>
> On Mar 20, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
> 
> It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a
> dangerous precedent.
>
> If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an
> emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after
> this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and
> adding on "well it's an emergency to me!".
>
> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
>> aren't as adaptable.
>>
>
> And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action
> to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other
> applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have
> a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat
> the bits differently?
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> It's one of those most important things that matters.
>>
>> The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They
>> also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
>>
>> The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will
>> very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
>>
>>
>> Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're
>> also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small
>> changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on
>> the Internet.
>>
>> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
>>
>> Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's
>> a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a
>> big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Blake Hudson" 
>> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
>> *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
>>
>> Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix
>> runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to
>> prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of
>> bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and
>> I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and
>> really conscientious compared to others.
>>
>> On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services
>> that aren't as adaptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-e

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Citing 25M may be a bit of a stretch since A) 4k is reserved for ISPs 
with a local cache (last time I checked), B) many (most?) Netflix 
customers are not on 4k equipment, C) 4k requires a premium subscription 
to Netflix at additional cost that not all customers have, D) the 
customer must have ~25M or above service and not be experiencing 
congestion on the path between the local Netflix cache and the 
customer's equipment, and E) if even one of the above is not true the 
Netflix user will typically receive a 3-5Mbps stream, depending on the 
device and connection performance.

On the networks I monitor, forcing a ~3Mbps or lower Netflix stream 
would have the effect of lowing the peak rate in the high demand hour, 
wasting available equipment and capacity. It would not have the effect 
of  improving VPN, VoIP, or video conferencing performance during the 
hours that those applications are typically used and I would wager that 
it would not have an appreciable effect on those applications even 
during peak usage periods. If there were a WiFi or similar issue within 
a specific household, the best way to address that is within the 
household (either turning off unneeded devices, moving high demand 
devices closer to the AP or wiring them, or upgrading to current WiFi 
technology).

--Blake

On 3/20/2020 9:15 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

It's one of those most important things that matters.

The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. 
They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.

The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. 
will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.

Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. 
They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the 
Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse 
most other usages on the Internet.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. 
That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and 
would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video 
conferencing, etc.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Blake Hudson" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM
*Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, 
Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix 
rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including 
Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing 
congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because 
Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared 
to others.

On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other
services that aren't as adaptable.

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

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--------------------
*From: *"Blake Hudson" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM
*Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the
>> next month or two.
> Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That
means 4K,
> 1080p and 720p.
>
> If you have an OCA on your network, how does this

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Mel Beckman


If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an 
emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this 
crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on 
"well it's an emergency to me!"

Well, that’s a silly argument. Do you think people can’t tell the difference 
between a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and somebody who’s having a “personal 
emergency”?

 -mel

On Mar 20, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:


It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous 
precedent.

If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an 
emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this 
crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on 
"well it's an emergency to me!".

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable.

And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to 
ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications 
be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net 
neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits 
differently?

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett 
mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.

The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also 
aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.

The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very 
much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.


Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also 
one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in 
usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x 
difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big 
difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Blake Hudson" mailto:bl...@ispn.net>>
To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs 
at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent 
congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, 
I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's 
unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious 
compared to others.

On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fb

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Tom Beecher

It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a
dangerous precedent.

If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an
emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after
this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and
adding on "well it's an emergency to me!".

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
> aren't as adaptable.
>

And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to
ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other
applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have
a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat
the bits differently?

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> It's one of those most important things that matters.
>
> The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They
> also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
>
> The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will
> very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
>
>
> Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're
> also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small
> changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on
> the Internet.
>
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
>
> Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's
> a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a
> big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Blake Hudson" 
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM
> *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
>
> Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix
> runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to
> prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of
> bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and
> I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and
> really conscientious compared to others.
>
> On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
> aren't as adaptable.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Blake Hudson"  
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM
> *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
>
>
> On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> > On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> >> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the
> >> next month or two.
> > Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K,
> > 1080p and 720p.
> >
> > If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to
> > use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
> >
> > Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
> >
> > Mark.
>
> Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase
> in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix
> automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the
> only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any
> congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go
> unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a
> technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision
> made out of fear or panic.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

It's one of those most important things that matters. 

The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also 
aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other. 

The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very 
much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds. 

Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also 
one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in 
usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet. 

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 

Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x 
difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big 
difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Blake Hudson"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs 
at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent 
congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, 
I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's 
unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious 
compared to others. 

On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Blake Hudson"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> 
> On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote: 
>> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the 
>> next month or two. 
> Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 
> 1080p and 720p. 
> 
> If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to 
> use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else? 
> 
> Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now? 
> 
> Mark. 

Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase 
in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix 
automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the 
only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any 
congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go 
unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a 
technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision 
made out of fear or panic.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, 
Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates 
down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) 
uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets 
a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really 
efficient and really conscientious compared to others.

On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services 
that aren't as adaptable.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Blake Hudson" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM
*Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the
>> next month or two.
> Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K,
> 1080p and 720p.
>
> If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to
> use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
>
> Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
>
> Mark.

Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase
in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix
automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the
only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any
congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go
unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a
technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision
made out of fear or panic.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that 
aren't as adaptable. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Blake Hudson"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> 
> On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote: 
>> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the 
>> next month or two. 
> Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 
> 1080p and 720p. 
> 
> If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to 
> use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else? 
> 
> Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now? 
> 
> Mark. 

Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase 
in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix 
automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the 
only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any 
congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go 
unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a 
technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision 
made out of fear or panic.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

Why in the world would they do that? 

Maybe waive the fees for the higher services, but you're not entitled to 
anything more than that. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Keith Medcalf"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 12:02:08 AM 
Subject: RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

On Thursday, 19 March, 2020 10:07, Matt Hoppes 
 wrote: 

>Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next 
>month or two. 

As long as NetFlix lowers their prices proportionately with their reduced level 
of service. For example, if NetFlix decides they will only provide 
"half-quality" service then they should only charge half price. 

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:


On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the
next month or two.

Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K,
1080p and 720p.

If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to
use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?

Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?

Mark.


Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase 
in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix 
automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the 
only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any 
congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go 
unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a 
technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision 
made out of fear or panic.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 20/Mar/20 09:19, Mel Beckman wrote:

> I don’t think Netflix has any quality guarantees. So you’re SOL if you think 
> there is some kind of legal recourse. I’d argue that 50% pay for 50% quality 
> is illogical anyway. HD is 25% the quality of 4K. Yet you get virtually all 
> of the value of the content, with only a sight reduction in detail. 
>
> Personally, I don’t think now is the time to quibble about ethereal costs. We 
> all need to roll up our sleeves, put our big boy pants on, and get the planet 
> through this crisis.

As I said on another list yesterday:

Overall, we've spent 3 decades building this global Internet. Time to
see if the child can stand on its own two webbed feet :-).

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-20 Thread Mel Beckman

I don’t think Netflix has any quality guarantees. So you’re SOL if you think 
there is some kind of legal recourse. I’d argue that 50% pay for 50% quality is 
illogical anyway. HD is 25% the quality of 4K. Yet you get virtually all of the 
value of the content, with only a sight reduction in detail. 

Personally, I don’t think now is the time to quibble about ethereal costs. We 
all need to roll up our sleeves, put our big boy pants on, and get the planet 
through this crisis.

 -mel 

> On Mar 19, 2020, at 10:02 PM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Thursday, 19 March, 2020 10:07, Matt Hoppes 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next
>> month or two.
> 
> As long as NetFlix lowers their prices proportionately with their reduced 
> level of service.  For example, if NetFlix decides they will only provide 
> "half-quality" service then they should only charge half price.
> 
> -- 
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> 
> 
>

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Keith Medcalf

On Thursday, 19 March, 2020 10:07, Matt Hoppes 
 wrote:

>Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next
>month or two.

As long as NetFlix lowers their prices proportionately with their reduced level 
of service.  For example, if NetFlix decides they will only provide 
"half-quality" service then they should only charge half price.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Steve Mikulasik via NANOG

Noticing a few major ISPs not peering with other major networks at their local 
IXs, instead taking cross country trips. I am sure this isn't helping 
congestion right now and I have heard from some people it is really affecting 
their remote users. People in the same city with 80ms-100ms latencies. Some 
companies with restrictive policies should review their peering policies and 
start really utilizing IXs for some quick capacity.

Maybe afterwards regulators can look at peering policies and how it affects 
their nation.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Tom Beecher

I don’t agree with your reading of this that applies downstream congestion
issues to your TSP codes circuit. But I will not continue to debate the
point.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 13:22 Mike Bolitho  wrote:

> *Restoration:*
>
> *The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications
> services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any
> reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such
> repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting,
> substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined
> necessary by a service vendor.*
>
>
> https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations%20Guide%20Final%2012062016_FINAL%20508C.pdf
>
>
> My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was
> that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to
> restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded
> DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause
> of that line.
>
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:05 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
>> Yes, you have said that. I still believe you are incorrect.
>>
>> TSP allows priority for turnup of new capacity , and priority restoration
>> for capacity. There is nothing in the regulations that I can find that
>> would allow TSP to be used to rectify general internet congestion issues.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mike Bolitho 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be
>>> used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built
>>> into the language.
>>>
>>> - Mike Bolitho
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>>
 EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.

 On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho 
 wrote:

> I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and
> gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is
> currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong
> suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this
> pushed harder in the coming weeks.
>
> In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
> situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
> joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the
> internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
>
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
>
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
>> > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
>> > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
>> > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
>> > customers.
>> >
>> > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
>> > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
>> > something change by now.
>>
>> South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
>> semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
>>
>> We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the
>> 17th.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 19/Mar/20 18:49, Jeff Shultz wrote:
> A few more Netflix cache boxes might be nice. We've got one only 1 hop
> away and I think we're keeping it busy.

Consumers follow what they perceive as value. They gave up on Command &
Control tendencies of old.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 19/Mar/20 18:53, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be
> used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's
> built into the language.

Command & Control, promoted by "policy makers" who "do not see the shift".

You can't tell people what to do with their online experience. These
policies worked in the pre-Internet-on-a-device-en-masse age. They don't
work in 2020.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Mike Bolitho

*Restoration:*

*The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications
services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any
reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such
repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting,
substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined
necessary by a service vendor.*

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations%20Guide%20Final%2012062016_FINAL%20508C.pdf


My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that
even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore
to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA
circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of
that line.

- Mike Bolitho


On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:05 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> Yes, you have said that. I still believe you are incorrect.
>
> TSP allows priority for turnup of new capacity , and priority restoration
> for capacity. There is nothing in the regulations that I can find that
> would allow TSP to be used to rectify general internet congestion issues.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mike Bolitho 
> wrote:
>
>> I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used
>> to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into
>> the language.
>>
>> - Mike Bolitho
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>
>>> EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and
 gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is
 currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong
 suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this
 pushed harder in the coming weeks.

 In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
 situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
 joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the
 internet during the battle against the virus propagation."


 https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html


 - Mike Bolitho


 On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
> > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
> > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
> > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
> > customers.
> >
> > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
> > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
> > something change by now.
>
> South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
> semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
>
> We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the
> 17th.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the
> next month or two.

Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K,
1080p and 720p.

If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to
use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?

Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks



On 19/Mar/20 18:05, Mike Bolitho wrote:

> I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and
> gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is
> currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a
> strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to
> see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
>
> In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
> situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have
> a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning
> of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."  
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html 
>

Well that's pretty desperate.

If you have an OCA connected to your network to serve your customers,
I'm not sure taking streams down from HD to SD actually moves the needle.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Tom Beecher

Yes, you have said that. I still believe you are incorrect.

TSP allows priority for turnup of new capacity , and priority restoration
for capacity. There is nothing in the regulations that I can find that
would allow TSP to be used to rectify general internet congestion issues.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mike Bolitho  wrote:

> I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used
> to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into
> the language.
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
>> EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and
>>> gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is
>>> currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong
>>> suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this
>>> pushed harder in the coming weeks.
>>>
>>> In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
>>> situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
>>> joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the
>>> internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> - Mike Bolitho
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>>>


 On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
 >
 >
 > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
 > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
 > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
 > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
 > customers.
 >
 > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
 > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
 > something change by now.

 South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
 semi-lockdown from about Sunday.

 We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.

 Mark.

>>>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Mike Bolitho

I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used
to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into
the language.

- Mike Bolitho


On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho 
> wrote:
>
>> I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and
>> gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is
>> currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong
>> suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this
>> pushed harder in the coming weeks.
>>
>> In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
>> situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
>> joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the
>> internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
>>
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
>>
>>
>> - Mike Bolitho
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
>>> > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
>>> > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
>>> > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
>>> > customers.
>>> >
>>> > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
>>> > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
>>> > something change by now.
>>>
>>> South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
>>> semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
>>>
>>> We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Tom Beecher

EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho  wrote:

> I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming
> DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently
> working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion
> and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder
> in the coming weeks.
>
> In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
> situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
> joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the
> internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
>
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
>> > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
>> > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
>> > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
>> > customers.
>> >
>> > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
>> > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
>> > something change by now.
>>
>> South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
>> semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
>>
>> We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Jeff Shultz

A few more Netflix cache boxes might be nice. We've got one only 1 hop
away and I think we're keeping it busy.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:11 AM Matt Hoppes
 wrote:
>
> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next
> month or two.
>
> On 3/19/20 12:05 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> > I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and
> > gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is
> > currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong
> > suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this
> > pushed harder in the coming weeks.
> >
> > In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
> > situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
> > joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of
> > the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
> >
> > https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
> >
> > - Mike Bolitho
> >
> >

-- 
Jeff Shultz

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Matt Hoppes

Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next 
month or two.

On 3/19/20 12:05 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and 
gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is 
currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong 
suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this 
pushed harder in the coming weeks.

In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented 
situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a 
joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of 
the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html

- Mike Bolitho

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka > wrote:

On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
 >
 >
 > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
 > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
 > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
 > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
 > customers.
 >
 > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
 > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
 > something change by now.

South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
semi-lockdown from about Sunday.

We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Mike Bolitho

I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming
DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently
working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion
and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder
in the coming weeks.

In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented
situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a
joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the
internet during the battle against the virus propagation."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html


- Mike Bolitho


On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external
> > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large
> > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.
> > We're an eyeball network plus some really large
> > customers.
> >
> > Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
> > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
> > something change by now.
>
> South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
> semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
>
> We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external 
> BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large 
> increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.  
> We're an eyeball network plus some really large 
> customers.
>
> Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
> now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
> something change by now.

South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on
semi-lockdown from about Sunday.

We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 18/Mar/20 17:40, Keith Medcalf wrote:

> Yes, it is generally an USian problem.  While I cannot speak to its
> prevelance in the US I can attest to the fact that USians try to bring
> this philosophy with them were ever they go and that such thinking has
> to be repelled with large bats.

No country, business or business model is immune, anywhere around the world.

In this new economy, your competitor is anyone, anywhere, with an idea
and an Internet connection.

So take heart - this won't be unique to America :-).

>
> I have had to deal with such things several times and my response is
> quite simple:  My name will not be associated in any way with that
> stupidity other than complete opposition to it.  If you want me to sign
> off on it, then I will not.  And if you decide to do it anyway then do
> not ask me to have anything to do with the mess that ensues because the
> only action you will get from me is "told you so -- you made your bed
> now go sleep in it".
>
> Generally the encroachment of ill-conceived plans is staved off until
> the resistant retire leaving the inmates in charge of the asylum.

The kids today don't care about your job title, how many degrees,
masters or PhD's you obtained to get there, the name of your company
(unless it rhymes with an app they adore), if you or your company are
famous, or whether you make thousands, millions or billions. All they
care about is if you give them value.

Businesses with product-based models that try to stay relevant through
cost-cutting and "focused sales" will be undone by unassuming
"pretenders" who know how to harness technology to deliver value to a
customer that lives thousands of miles away, in another land; the kinds
of "pretenders" who are not interested in stamping their authority or
superiority on a market.

The world has changed. Adapt or die :-).

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Alexandre Petrescu


Some VPN issues reported at my organisation as well

Mygroup has some members who cant join, so everyone else goes out, make 
groups on other platforms, which I hope scale.


Le 19/03/2020 à 08:18, Matt Hoppes a écrit :
Our traffic is normally about 1/3 during the day of what it is at 
night (6pm-midnight).


Since Monday the only change I've seen is that traffic goes to about 
1/2 peak around 10am and stays there until about 6pm.


So no capacity concerns


We have been fielding a ridiculous amount of "my VPN doesn't work, 
it's your problem" support calls though =\


I feel for any corporate IT guy right now.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-19 Thread Matt Hoppes

Our traffic is normally about 1/3 during the day of what it is at night 
(6pm-midnight).


Since Monday the only change I've seen is that traffic goes to about 1/2 
peak around 10am and stays there until about 6pm.


So no capacity concerns


We have been fielding a ridiculous amount of "my VPN doesn't work, it's 
your problem" support calls though =\


I feel for any corporate IT guy right now.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Scott Weeks





We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external 
BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large 
increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time.  
We're an eyeball network plus some really large 
customers.

Anyone else seeing something different?  We're
now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see
something change by now.

scott

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Alexandre Petrescu

I saw on TV official requests to police radio to remove masks (Idont 
know why, because they dont have any anyways)


Le 18/03/2020 à 16:29, Mark Tinka a écrit :


On 17/Mar/20 20:54, Dan White wrote:

  


Attackers taking advantage of this situation is a serious concern.

In South Africa, we have people claiming to be from the Department of
Health and one other reputable medical care group, going door-to-door
offering Coronavirus testing:


https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/kwazulu-natal/south-africans-warned-about-door-to-door-coronavirus-test-scam-44958885


Be alert; the scammers are.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 18/Mar/20 18:09, Jeff Shultz wrote:

> Is it so difficult to put an "override, but keep counting" button on a
> device like this?

Where's the money in that?

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Jeff Shultz

Is it so difficult to put an "override, but keep counting" button on a
device like this?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:04 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17/Mar/20 20:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> > I don’t get this… X-Ray machines (and other critical medical equipment) 
> > should operate in a fail-safe mode where a license screw up doesn’t prevent 
> > the machine from operating.
> >
> > If the hospital hasn’t paid up, find a way to go after the hospital, but 
> > don’t kill patients to collect your fee.
>
> For my very simple 1+1 mind, I totally agree.
>
> Perhaps, it's far easier to collect (overdue) fees with a gun to your
> head, if I don't actually need to point one at you.
>
>
>
> > Why should there be a license server at all? Why should an X-ray machine 
> > have an external dependency like that in the first place, even if it’s a 
> > local server?
>
> My Google OnHub wireless AP is completely unmanageable if I (against
> Google's advice) run it in Bridged mode. If I want to be able to reach
> it and manage it with an app or a web site, it needs to run as a router,
> even if all I want from it is to be an AP. You can guess who long mine
> have gone without a software update, then...
>
> Who knows why people come up with the BS they do?
>
> Mark.

-- 
Jeff Shultz

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Dan White


On 03/18/20 09:29 -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:



On 3/17/2020 1:54 PM, Dan White wrote:

On 03/17/20 14:38 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:38:28AM -0700, Mike Bolitho wrote:

That's the good news.   Here's the bad news: in about 2-3 weeks, when
our health care systems are stretched to the breaking point, there will
be a window of opportunity for adversaries to maximize the damage.


On a slightly tangential topic, we had a dictionary attack against 
customer voice accounts over night, presumably to implement toll fraud.

We were in the middle of working out work-from-home plans and were quite
distracted with other things. We managed to get on top of it quickly
once someone noticed.

Attackers taking advantage of this situation is a serious concern.

Dan, we're aware of another telco that ran into a similar fraud 
situation last week. They stood up some more restrictive ACLs to 
combat the fraud, but broke VoIP RTP in the process. 'Hit em while 
they're occupied' type of attacks I guess should be expected right 
now. As my grandmother would say: an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure.


Hey Blake,

I appreciate that. We've got two tendencies going on here at the moment:

1) Man the ship of operations. Stay alert and fix the problems that arise.
Be totally reactive, and be the "hero".

2) Increase visibility and focus on network design. Move planned upgrades
up a few weeks/months. Be proactive.

Option 2 is the better long term option, but the risk is that any change,
while short staffed is going to run the risk of unintended consequences. Basically it's 
"If it's not broke, don't fix it." and "Be very paranoid about what you touch.

--
Dan White
Network Admin Lead

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 18/Mar/20 16:35, Seth Mattinen wrote:

>
>
> Do all the SLA's in the world even matter if the contract has a force
> majeure clause?

Feel-good-tick-in-the-box type-thing... like that time a network
operator is asked if any part of their network/service touches any
equipment manufactured by a well-known Chinese OEM :-).

Tick in the box :-)...

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 18/Mar/20 13:24, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> The use of "you/your" here and throughout is misplaced and inappropriate.
>
> Also: this not an isolated or unique experience.  It's this way pretty
> much everywhere in the US now.  And I can disapprove of it, you can
> disapprove of it, we can all disapprove of it, but like I said, until
> money is completely removed from the calculation, this is how it will be.
> Critiques of process and role and organization and everything else are
> interesting, maybe even correct --  but will change nothing.

Not just the U.S., mate. Not just the U.S.

Some families in Ethiopia and Indonesia would be happy to be proof.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 18/Mar/20 11:43, Keith Medcalf wrote:

> No.  One simply has to assign a "cost" to "suitability for use".  For
> example, if you put out an RFQ for a CT Machine and someone bids a bag
> of peanuts for $1.50, that is probably the lowest bid, and that is what
> you will get if you choose based entirely on the lowest bid.  However,
> if you also require that the purchased machine also actually be capable
> of performing Computed Tomography then clearly that $1.50 bid will be
> rejected.
>
> You simply have to define what you want to achieve, then do it.

If only it were that simple, with 2020 corporate life.

What I can say tends to work is:

    "You simply have to define what you want to achieve, scream, yell and
 shout, then do it, then scream, yell and shout some more, until you
can't
    tell whether you'll leave the job from being fed up or being asked
to walk".

That has a slightly better chance of succeeding more than failing.

I'm old now - I ask once, maybe twice if I've had a beer. Then I carry
on, and we meet in 12 months when it all goes to hell :-).

Mark.

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Keith Medcalf

On Wednesday, 18 March, 2020 05:24, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 03:43:37AM -0600, Keith Medcalf wrote:

>> So you failed because you did not require the person making the
>> decision to take responsibility for their decision.  That is, your
>> organization has a severely flawed process wherein the "R" for
>> making the decision is not the same person as has the "R" for
>> the repercussions.

>The use of "you/your" here and throughout is misplaced and
inappropriate.

It is the "Royal You".  However, you can replace that with generics if
y'all wish.

The point is that the root of the problem is the failure of the
organizational decision maker to take responsibility for their decision.

As a business person (now retired) once told me about the things he
sells in his shop, "I will not sell that here because in my opinion it
is crap.  If you want that, you can go to the shop next door.  They will
be quite willing to sell that crap to you, but don't come complaining to
me when your failure to take my advice comes back to bite you in the
ass."

>Also: this not an isolated or unique experience.  It's this way pretty
>much everywhere in the US now.  And I can disapprove of it, you can
>disapprove of it, we can all disapprove of it, but like I said, until
>money is completely removed from the calculation, this is how it will
be.
>Critiques of process and role and organization and everything else are
>interesting, maybe even correct --  but will change nothing.

Yes, it is generally an USian problem.  While I cannot speak to its
prevelance in the US I can attest to the fact that USians try to bring
this philosophy with them were ever they go and that such thinking has
to be repelled with large bats.

I have had to deal with such things several times and my response is
quite simple:  My name will not be associated in any way with that
stupidity other than complete opposition to it.  If you want me to sign
off on it, then I will not.  And if you decide to do it anyway then do
not ask me to have anything to do with the mess that ensues because the
only action you will get from me is "told you so -- you made your bed
now go sleep in it".

Generally the encroachment of ill-conceived plans is staved off until
the resistant retire leaving the inmates in charge of the asylum.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven
says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 23:47, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

>
> Decisions are no longer based on the greater good or on anticipating worst
> case scenarios or on maximizing preparedness or anything that we might
> hope they're based on.  They're based, coldly and calculatingly, on money.
>
> If you want this to change -- and I sure would like it to change --
> then money needs to be entirely removed from that calculation.  That is
> a problem whose solution lies outside the scope of NANOG.
>

I've been saying, quietly to friends for a while now, that this system
of money is stretching all of us to the limit, because we are all
chasing it.

In this age of Coronavirus, what good is money if the supermarket
shelves are empty? What good is money if people are dead? Also, money
works because not all of us have it - and yet the goal of any society is
to put it in everyone's hands.

So then, what's the real value [of money] if everyone has the ability to
pay everyone?

Between the Coronavirus and the love spats between Russia and Saudi
Arabia, "artificial" markets have lost 20% of their value. Some
economies with less advanced markets are finding value in other "less
artificial" things, so they can get their toilet paper, hehe :-).

Seriously though, I echo Rich's comments - this isn't a problem NANOG
can solve, but if the Coronavirus has taught us anything, it's that we
seriously need to re-evaluate this "modern humanity" thing we are all
trying to build, and live.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.




> On Mar 18, 2020, at 9:24 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/Mar/20 20:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> Step one:
>>  Consumers _AND_ especially mission critical consumers must start 
>> refusing to purchase devices which have inherent dependency on a 
>> vendor-cloud (or any cloud for that matter).
> 
> Good advice for mission-critical consumers. 

>> Stop treating things you don’t own and things that aren’t hosted locally as 
>> “reliable” and make sure that they are not in the mission critical chain of 
>> urgent patient care.

We have told our readers (and, really, anyone who will listen) for years that 
'the cloud' is just another term for 'somebody else's computer'.  Sometimes 
(often) people really need to hear it in such simple terms.

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Policy Drafting and Review for Businesses
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant, GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




On 17/Mar/20 20:54, Dan White wrote:

>  
>
> Attackers taking advantage of this situation is a serious concern.

In South Africa, we have people claiming to be from the Department of
Health and one other reputable medical care group, going door-to-door
offering Coronavirus testing:

   
https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/kwazulu-natal/south-africans-warned-about-door-to-door-coronavirus-test-scam-44958885

Be alert; the scammers are.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 20:35, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Step one:
> Consumers _AND_ especially mission critical consumers must start
> refusing to purchase devices which have inherent dependency on a
> vendor-cloud (or any cloud for that matter).

Good advice for mission-critical consumers.

But the kids don't care how the information gets to them, as long as it
gets to them.

>
> Stop treating things you don’t own and things that aren’t hosted
> locally as “reliable” and make sure that they are not in the mission
> critical chain of urgent patient care.
>
> Anything in the healthcare vertical that is outside of the medical
> providers control/ownership is a result of the medical provider buying
> into that model on some level. STOP DOING THAT.
> (How am I suddenly reminded of the old adage “Doctor, doctor, it hurts
> when I do this!”…)
>
> I understand how the allure of lower costs and the frustration of
> “every vendor does this, we can’t find one who doesn’t” plays out.
> However, the only way “every vendor does it” will continue is if every
> vendor continues to be able to make sales without changing.

Product-based mindset from an industrial era is very hard to shake, even
though as consumers of commoditized information in 2020, ourselves, we
actually employ a value-based mindset for our personal consumption,
which we are unable to use to convert our own businesses into. Funny
that, eh...

Your competitor is no longer the shop down the road. It's anyone,
anywhere, with an Internet connection and an idea. No one is immune from
this, not even healthcare providers or the OEM's they choose to buy from.

Cutting costs is not how you stay relevant. But, it's what product-based
businesses know to do, because the alternative is simply too daring to
consider :-).

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 20:33, Emille Blanc wrote:

> In a world where you can license device performance by the megabit/sec/day, 
> or even have to purchase per-use factory reset keys since the manufacture has 
> stripped product owners of that right too, this doesn't totally surprise me.
>
> There would have to be a flip side to that coin - I would have to guess 
> (read: guess) it's a 'n' x-rays/day to "cut costs to the end user." Great 
> practice on paper for little guys, but beyond that...

In the industrial era, it was "knowledge & expertise". In the digital
era, it's "curiosity and creativity".

Access to information is ubiquitous and exponential. Knowledge has been
commoditized. How does that hurt the medical industry, you wonder? Well,
a webachondriac will use the Internet to easily self-diagnose, use an
app to order medication online, and have it delivered, all without ever
leaving his/her house.

How many businesses have lost out on his dime in that process? The local
GP down the corner. The local pharmacy up the corner. And all the supply
chain in between.

If traditional businesses don't adapt, they will become irrelevant.

Cutting costs (as the hospitals and, pretty much, any industry is doing)
is the first path to staving off the death spiral. And then the massacre
follows.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 20:26, Shane Ronan wrote:

>  Because the hospitals don't own the machines and the companies that
> do, charge the hospital per x-ray. The hospitals moved to this model
> to reduce their costs during "quiet" periods. And by doing so, put
> their patients in jeopardy.

Can be said of, pretty much, any industry in 2020 that sells products
(and not value).

Remember that plane that was designed -MAX? Wonder how that happened.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 20:06, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I don’t get this… X-Ray machines (and other critical medical equipment) 
> should operate in a fail-safe mode where a license screw up doesn’t prevent 
> the machine from operating.
>
> If the hospital hasn’t paid up, find a way to go after the hospital, but 
> don’t kill patients to collect your fee.

For my very simple 1+1 mind, I totally agree.

Perhaps, it's far easier to collect (overdue) fees with a gun to your
head, if I don't actually need to point one at you.

> Why should there be a license server at all? Why should an X-ray machine have 
> an external dependency like that in the first place, even if it’s a local 
> server?

My Google OnHub wireless AP is completely unmanageable if I (against
Google's advice) run it in Bridged mode. If I want to be able to reach
it and manage it with an app or a web site, it needs to run as a router,
even if all I want from it is to be an AP. You can guess who long mine
have gone without a software update, then...

Who knows why people come up with the BS they do?

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 19:56, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

>  
>
> I buy newspaper every Saturday and every Tuesday since some time now. 
> In addition to local news and The Economist, I include NYTimes
> International edition because thats the only USA thing in my very
> small local news stand in small city.  Different places in the world
> have different options for USA newspapers .

Good for you.

For the rest of us who'd rather trade memes about whether a president is
telling the truth or not, with each tweet, we put a newspaper,
somewhere, out of business.

For better or worse, can't blame the Twitter :-\...

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks



On 17/Mar/20 19:46, Mike Bolitho wrote:

>
> I totally agree and 99.999% of the time, congestion on the Internet is
> a nuisance, not a critical problem. I'm not sitting here complaining
> that my public internet circuits don't have SLAs or that we run into
> some packet loss and latency here and there under normal operations.
> That's obviously to be expected. But this whole topic is around what
> to do when a once in a lifetime pandemic hits and we're faced with
> unseen levels of congestion across the country's infrastructure. I
> mean the thread is titled COVID-19 Vs Our Networks. That's why I
> brought up the possible application of TSP to tell some of the big
> CDNs that maybe they should limit 4K streaming or big DLCs during a
> pandemic. That's it. And yet I'm getting chastised (not necessarily by
> you) for suggesting that hospitals, governments, water treatment
> plants, power plants, first responders, etc are actually more
> important during times like this.

To me, sounds like a potential business case for an existing or new CDN
provider focused squarely on healthcare, and other such critical
services :-).

As is always the case with invention, "I didn't like what I found, so I
built a better one".

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 19:43, Keith Medcalf wrote:

>
> If by "device" you mean "computer", then you are correct.

"A computer? What's that?" said the kids :-).

> Never in 57 years.

You caught it early :-).

> Never because I don't have any.  But I don't either.  Babbling idiots don't 
> do anything for me.
>
> And before you ask, I get "important news" directly.  If the building next 
> door falls over, I notice.  Otherwise I don't think there *IS* such a thing 
> as *important news*, or I can only think of a couple of "important news" that 
> have happened in my entire lifetime on one hand.  In no case was a babbling 
> idiot or propaganda purveyor of any particular use.

Even if you're a generation or two behind, you're not that far off from
how the kids treat acquisition of information in 2020 :-).

> Never used any of those.  They are just hangouts for yet more babbling 
> idiots.  Some of them are even named appropriately -- like Twitter -- which 
> as I understand it is the place where all the twits congregate.

And it's what's driving all this madness. Sadly, if we want to keep
eating, we have no choice but to follow it and engage with the kids.

> Correct.  No value there.  Just more babbling idiots.

Again, just what the kids feel. Are you sure you're 57 :-)?

> I have an e-mail app on my phone that is connected to my (not someone else's) 
> e-mail server that handles e-mail, contacts, and calendaring in a distributed 
> fashion that is the same on every "device" I own.  If a device will not work 
> with my e-mail server, does not function as I need it to function, or is not 
> safe and secure to my requirements, I do not buy that device (that means that 
> the list of devices that I refuse to buy and will not permit in the same room 
> as me is VERY VERY VERY long).  Most of the other rubbish has been banished 
> because it is nothing more than yet more piles of babbling idiots.

In that way, you're on your own.

Most kids aren't into e-mail; perhaps only because they need one to
install and use Instagram :-).

> Send e-mail.  Or provide an e-mail list.  I will not fiddle faddle with going 
> to websites chock full of malicious websites nor will I let any Tom Dickhead 
> send their malicious crap to me.  By the time the malicious crap infestation 
> is filtered out, there is nothing left.
>
> Then again I am an old fart.

You may very well be, but your perception of value (although in the
alternate universe) mirrors how the kids treat the networks we build for
them today. They don't care about your products. They just want to
achieve their value.

Telco's (and ISP's) are very product-based organizations. "Here's a list
of products, they each cost that, tell me which one you want", said the
Head of Sales. But all the kids want to do is share a bunch of
champagne-popping videos on Instagram, force a bank manager to return
wrongly-billed fees via Twitter, and show the world how badly a police
chase ended on WhatsApp. They don't care whose network they use to share
what gives them "value", and the first chance they get, they will switch
away from your sacred 5G to some random wi-fi hot spot.

What's even wilder is that as consumers of these apps ourselves, we
emulate a value-based need rather than one based on products. But
somehow, as service providers and businesses, we do not seem to know how
to offer value in lieu of product. It fascinates me.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Tom Beecher

Depends on the verbiage of the clause.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:41 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 3/17/20 10:03 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> >
> > We have two redundant private lines out of each hospital connecting back
> > to primary and DR DCs and a metro connecting everything together in each
> > region. But for things we do not own that are not hosted locally, what
> > are we supposed to do? We have to go out DIA to get there. Everything we
> > own is connected via fully SLAed private lines. We have zero issues
> > there. I think people vastly underestimate just how much in the
> > healthcare vertical is outside of a medical providers control/ownership.
> >
>
>
> Do all the SLA's in the world even matter if the contract has a force
> majeure clause?
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Seth Mattinen


On 3/17/20 10:03 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote:


We have two redundant private lines out of each hospital connecting back 
to primary and DR DCs and a metro connecting everything together in each 
region. But for things we do not own that are not hosted locally, what 
are we supposed to do? We have to go out DIA to get there. Everything we 
own is connected via fully SLAed private lines. We have zero issues 
there. I think people vastly underestimate just how much in the 
healthcare vertical is outside of a medical providers control/ownership.





Do all the SLA's in the world even matter if the contract has a force 
majeure clause?

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 19:35, Tom Beecher wrote:
> You're facing essentially the same issue as many in non-healthcare do
> ; how to best talk to applications in Magic Cloud Land. Reaching the
> major cloud providers does not require DIA ; they all have presences
> on the major IXes, and direct peering could be an option too depending
> on your needs and traffic. 
>
> I don't mean to be dismissive of the issues you face, I apologize if
> that's how it comes off. What you describe is certainly challenging,
> but I think that you will have better success with some of the options
> that are out there already than hoping for any resolution of
> intermittent congestion issues in the wild west of the DFZ.

Sounds like a use-case for the cloud providers' so-called "Express
Route" services. But that will only be really successful if the majority
of the services that the hospitals need are hosted on the cloud
platforms that offer these Express Route things.

Then again, the "private" link between a cloud provider and their
customer is typically an MPLS-based one, which is subject to emergent
issues that may impact the operators' backbone.

If the service is not on a cloud provider (or one that can offer an
Express Route thing), then we're back to square one.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Blake Hudson





On 3/17/2020 1:54 PM, Dan White wrote:

On 03/17/20 14:38 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:38:28AM -0700, Mike Bolitho wrote:

Anybody who works in the healthcare vertical will tell you just how
bad medical devices are to work with from an IT perspective.


Medical devices are appallingly bad to work with from an IT perspective.

They're designed and built to work in idealized environments that don't
exist, they make unduly optimistic assumptions, they completely fail to
account for hostile actors, and whenever possible they are gratuitously
incompatible to ensure vendor lock-in.

That's the good news.   Here's the bad news: in about 2-3 weeks, when
our health care systems are stretched to the breaking point, there will
be a window of opportunity for adversaries to maximize the damage.


On a slightly tangential topic, we had a dictionary attack against 
customer

voice accounts over night, presumably to implement toll fraud. We were in
the middle of working out work-from-home plans and were quite distracted
with other things. We managed to get on top of it quickly once someone
noticed.

Attackers taking advantage of this situation is a serious concern.

Dan, we're aware of another telco that ran into a similar fraud 
situation last week. They stood up some more restrictive ACLs to combat 
the fraud, but broke VoIP RTP in the process. 'Hit em while they're 
occupied' type of attacks I guess should be expected right now. As my 
grandmother would say: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On 17/Mar/20 19:03, Mike Bolitho wrote:

> I keep seeing this over and over again in this long thread. What's
> your suggestion? How does a hospital, with dozens of third party
> applications/devices across multiple cloud platforms do this?
>
> We have two redundant private lines out of each hospital connecting
> back to primary and DR DCs and a metro connecting everything together
> in each region. But for things we do not own that are not hosted
> locally, what are we supposed to do? We have to go out DIA to get
> there. Everything we own is connected via fully SLAed private lines.
> We have zero issues there. I think people vastly underestimate just
> how much in the healthcare vertical is outside of a medical providers
> control/ownership.

On my WhatsApp profile, one of my tag lines is "Hater of the 'What Do
You Do?' culture and WhatsApp Calling". I detest both equally.

But focusing on the latter, if you call me on WhatsApp, I'll cut you off
and call you back via GSM. The only time I'll entertain any WhatsApp
calls is if GSM coverage is poor, or if I know you are traveling and
can't roam, but have wi-fi.

I'd never blame my mobile providers for poor quality WhatsApp calls, nor
would I do the same to my ISP. I have zero patience for WhatsApp voice
calls to sort themselves out when initiated, and yet plenty of people
enjoy using it for whatever reasons, mostly to "save money". Personally,
wasting time exchanging "Can you hear me now?" is more costly than
having a short and concise call over GSM. If we are going to talk for
hours, let's have a beer.

The point is, as much as some "critical" conversations (want to) take
place on WhatsApp, Facebook have zero control of the quality of that
experience once the bits leave their data centre. I don't know if they
will ever fix that given all the variables that exist thousands of miles
from where the service is hosted, but you might not be forgiven for
thinking you can run a voice-based business on WhatsApp. In fact,
recording a voice note and sending it via WhatsApp is like two-way
walkie-talkie radio, but perhaps more reliable :-).

I really don't know how to fix this for hospitals relying on best-effort
infrastructure to deliver critical, priority services to their patients.

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 03:43:37AM -0600, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> So you failed because you did not require the person making the decision
> to take responsibility for their decision.  That is, your organization
> has a severely flawed process wherein the "R" for making the decision is
> not the same person as has the "R" for the repercussions.

The use of "you/your" here and throughout is misplaced and inappropriate.

Also: this not an isolated or unique experience.  It's this way pretty
much everywhere in the US now.  And I can disapprove of it, you can
disapprove of it, we can all disapprove of it, but like I said, until
money is completely removed from the calculation, this is how it will be.
Critiques of process and role and organization and everything else are
interesting, maybe even correct --  but will change nothing.

---rsk

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-18 Thread Keith Medcalf

On Tuesday, 17 March, 2020 15:48, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:35:59AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> Anything in the healthcare vertical that is outside of the medical
>> providers control/ownership is a result of the medical provider
>> buying into that model on some level. STOP DOING THAT.  (How am I
>> suddenly reminded of the old adage ???Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I
>> do this!??)

>> I understand how the allure of lower costs and the frustration of
>> ???every vendor does this, we can???t find one who doesn???t???
>> plays out.
>>> However, the only way ???every vendor does it??? will continue
>> is if every vendor continues to be able to make sales without
>> changing.

>Fought this battle, lost this battle.

>Why?

>Because the people with the authority to make purchasing decisions are
>not the people who will be on the phone to some vendor's tech support
at
>3 AM on a Sunday morning, frantically pleading with them to fix a
problem
>because they really need that piece of equipment to work right now.

So you failed because you did not require the person making the decision
to take responsibility for their decision.  That is, your organization
has a severely flawed process wherein the "R" for making the decision is
not the same person as has the "R" for the repercussions.

>Decisions are no longer based on the greater good or on anticipating
>worst case scenarios or on maximizing preparedness or anything that
>we might hope they're based on.  They're based, coldly and
calculatingly,
>on money.

No, they are based on whatever the specification for making decisions
happens to be.  If you have chosen that basis to be "cheapest bidder",
then that is what you can expect to receive.

>If you want this to change -- and I sure would like it to change --
>then money needs to be entirely removed from that calculation.  That is
>a problem whose solution lies outside the scope of NANOG.

No.  One simply has to assign a "cost" to "suitability for use".  For
example, if you put out an RFQ for a CT Machine and someone bids a bag
of peanuts for $1.50, that is probably the lowest bid, and that is what
you will get if you choose based entirely on the lowest bid.  However,
if you also require that the purchased machine also actually be capable
of performing Computed Tomography then clearly that $1.50 bid will be
rejected.

You simply have to define what you want to achieve, then do it.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven
says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Valdis Klētnieks

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:43:45 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:

> And before you ask, I get "important news" directly.

I'm glad to hear you're someplace on the planet where covid-19
doesn't count as important news.  Hopefully the news will arrive
to you directly before the virus does.


pgp1W4vwcfEXk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:35:59AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Anything in the healthcare vertical that is outside of the medical
> providers control/ownership is a result of the medical provider
> buying into that model on some level. STOP DOING THAT.  (How am I
> suddenly reminded of the old adage ???Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I
> do this!??)
> 
> I understand how the allure of lower costs and the frustration of ???every
> vendor does this, we can???t find one who doesn???t??? plays out. However,
> the only way ???every vendor does it??? will continue is if every vendor
> continues to be able to make sales without changing.
> 

Fought this battle, lost this battle.

Why?

Because the people with the authority to make purchasing decisions are
not the people who will be on the phone to some vendor's tech support at
3 AM on a Sunday morning, frantically pleading with them to fix a problem
because they really need that piece of equipment to work right now.

Decisions are no longer based on the greater good or on anticipating worst
case scenarios or on maximizing preparedness or anything that we might
hope they're based on.  They're based, coldly and calculatingly, on money.

If you want this to change -- and I sure would like it to change --
then money needs to be entirely removed from that calculation.  That is
a problem whose solution lies outside the scope of NANOG.

Meanwhile, I've updated this:

Covid19
http://www.firemountain.net/covid19.html

to include some more resources, including CORD-19, which compiles tens
of thousands of papers on the virus in one place.  I've also included
a link to the relevant Folding@Home project -- which could probably
use as much CPU as you can throw at it.

---rsk

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Mike Hammett

Join an IX your provider is on? 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Bolitho"  
To: "Tom Beecher"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 12:03:46 PM 
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks 

> The answer is don't shove application traffic that has tight service level 
> requirements onto the public internet at large and expect the same 
> performance as private circuits or other SLA protected services. 

I keep seeing this over and over again in this long thread. What's your 
suggestion? How does a hospital, with dozens of third party 
applications/devices across multiple cloud platforms do this? 

We have two redundant private lines out of each hospital connecting back to 
primary and DR DCs and a metro connecting everything together in each region. 
But for things we do not own that are not hosted locally, what are we supposed 
to do? We have to go out DIA to get there. Everything we own is connected via 
fully SLAed private lines. We have zero issues there. I think people vastly 
underestimate just how much in the healthcare vertical is outside of a medical 
providers control/ownership. 

- Mike Bolitho 

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:54 AM Tom Beecher  wrote: 

The answer is don't shove application traffic that has tight service level 
requirements onto the public internet at large and expect the same performance 
as private circuits or other SLA protected services. 

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:40 AM Mike Bolitho < mikeboli...@gmail.com > wrote: 

If an x-ray machine won't work because the Internet is down, I'm not sure that 
is responsible. As inefficient as it may be to have a license server on-prem if 
there is an option to check against one in the public cloud, for a medical 
use-case, that would make more sense to me. 

Totally agree with you. Unfortunately it's not a problem with the medical 
providers, it's a problem with the medical devices. Anybody who works in the 
healthcare vertical will tell you just how bad medical devices are to work with 
from an IT perspective. And that is part of my original comments. 

In your case, I am not sure I have an answer for you, unfortunately. The public 
Internet is what it is, mostly best-effort. Your applications and use-cases 
certainly deserve better than that. I'm not sure how to achieve that as your 
industry shoves more and more activity into the public Internet domain, for one 
reason or another. 

I don't know what it's going to take either. A general shift in mentality from 
the vendors we use I guess. I'm not sure how you get a bunch of medical 
providers to tell these companies they need to fix their stuff. You can't 
exactly use your wallet to force change either. There are only a handful of 
vendor options out there so there isn't a ton of choice. It's not like you can 
buy one of 50 different models of CT machines or EHR systems. 

Generally speaking it's not an issue. It's just in crazy times like these 
where, if congestion on the public internet gets too crazy, that certain 
platforms might need to be deemed "unnecessary". Is playing Fortnight a right? 
Is streaming a movie in 4K a right? In cases like San Francisco they have 
decided that leaving your home for anything other than work or medical care is 
no longer a right because you're now infringing on other's rights by 
potentially getting them sick. Maybe 4K Netflix fits into that category if 
you're causing problems for first responders and hospitals trying to save 
lives. 

- Mike Bolitho 

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:22 AM Mark Tinka < mark.ti...@seacom.mu > wrote: 

On 16/Mar/20 16:54, Carsten Bormann wrote: 

> I recently had to reschedule an X-ray because the license manager for the 
> X-ray machine was acting up. I don’t think people have a grasp for how much 
> of the medical infrastructure no longer works when the Internet is down. 

I get this, to some extent. But also, there is a reason hospitals, 
airports and military installations are either put on special power 
grids or invest plenty of money in backup power. 

If an x-ray machine won't work because the Internet is down, I'm not 
sure that is responsible. As inefficient as it may be to have a license 
server on-prem if there is an option to check against one in the public 
cloud, for a medical use-case, that would make more sense to me. 

Mark.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Dan White


On 03/17/20 14:38 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:38:28AM -0700, Mike Bolitho wrote:

Anybody who works in the healthcare vertical will tell you just how
bad medical devices are to work with from an IT perspective.


Medical devices are appallingly bad to work with from an IT perspective.

They're designed and built to work in idealized environments that don't
exist, they make unduly optimistic assumptions, they completely fail to
account for hostile actors, and whenever possible they are gratuitously
incompatible to ensure vendor lock-in.

That's the good news.   Here's the bad news: in about 2-3 weeks, when
our health care systems are stretched to the breaking point, there will
be a window of opportunity for adversaries to maximize the damage.


On a slightly tangential topic, we had a dictionary attack against customer
voice accounts over night, presumably to implement toll fraud. We were in
the middle of working out work-from-home plans and were quite distracted
with other things. We managed to get on top of it quickly once someone
noticed.

Attackers taking advantage of this situation is a serious concern.

--
Dan White
Network Admin Lead

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks




> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:43 , Keith Medcalf  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, 17 March, 2020 03:31, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
>> On 16/Mar/20 21:08, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>>> For up to date local information, check with the local public health
>>> authority in your jurisdiction. In the US, that will usually
>>> be your county public health agency. In some cases, individual
>>> municipalities also have public health departments.
> 
>> It's the price we pay for hyper-connectedness (not trying to coin a
>> phrase, hehe).
> 
>> Everybody (especially the kids) lives on their device 99% of the time.
>> If you're not on their device, you are not relevant to them.
> 
> If by "device" you mean "computer", then you are correct.
> 

I think “device” is correct because it encompasses computer, smart phone, 
tablet, e-reader, whatever else with a screen, some form of input device(s), 
and network connectivity.

Owen

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:38:28AM -0700, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> Anybody who works in the healthcare vertical will tell you just how
> bad medical devices are to work with from an IT perspective.

Medical devices are appallingly bad to work with from an IT perspective.

They're designed and built to work in idealized environments that don't
exist, they make unduly optimistic assumptions, they completely fail to
account for hostile actors, and whenever possible they are gratuitously
incompatible to ensure vendor lock-in.

That's the good news.   Here's the bad news: in about 2-3 weeks, when
our health care systems are stretched to the breaking point, there will
be a window of opportunity for adversaries to maximize the damage.

---rsk

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Keith Medcalf

On Tuesday, 17 March, 2020 11:04, Mike Bolitho  wrote:

>>The answer is don't shove application traffic that has tight service
>>level requirements onto the public internet at large and expect the same
>>performance as private circuits or other SLA protected services.

>I keep seeing this over and over again in this long thread. What's your
>suggestion? How does a hospital, with dozens of third party
>applications/devices across multiple cloud platforms do this?

Do what everyone else that has "critical infrastructure" does.  Put a 
requirement in the RFP that the thing you want to buy must continue to operate 
even when totally isolated from the outside world.  And then do not select to 
purchase products that do not meet this requirement.

It is quite simple actually.  We do this all the time with great success.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks



> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:03 , Mike Bolitho  wrote:
> 
> >The answer is don't shove application traffic that has tight service level 
> >requirements onto the public internet at large and expect the same 
> >performance as private circuits or other SLA protected services.
> 
> I keep seeing this over and over again in this long thread. What's your 
> suggestion? How does a hospital, with dozens of third party 
> applications/devices across multiple cloud platforms do this?

Step one:
Consumers _AND_ especially mission critical consumers must start 
refusing to purchase devices which have inherent dependency on a vendor-cloud 
(or any cloud for that matter).

> We have two redundant private lines out of each hospital connecting back to 
> primary and DR DCs and a metro connecting everything together in each region. 
> But for things we do not own that are not hosted locally, what are we 
> supposed to do? We have to go out DIA to get there. Everything we own is 
> connected via fully SLAed private lines. We have zero issues there. I think 
> people vastly underestimate just how much in the healthcare vertical is 
> outside of a medical providers control/ownership.

Stop treating things you don’t own and things that aren’t hosted locally as 
“reliable” and make sure that they are not in the mission critical chain of 
urgent patient care.

Anything in the healthcare vertical that is outside of the medical providers 
control/ownership is a result of the medical provider buying into that model on 
some level. STOP DOING THAT.
(How am I suddenly reminded of the old adage “Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I 
do this!”…)

I understand how the allure of lower costs and the frustration of “every vendor 
does this, we can’t find one who doesn’t” plays out. However, the only way 
“every vendor does it” will continue is if every vendor continues to be able to 
make sales without changing.

Owen

> 
> - Mike Bolitho
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:54 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
> The answer is don't shove application traffic that has tight service level 
> requirements onto the public internet at large and expect the same 
> performance as private circuits or other SLA protected services.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:40 AM Mike Bolitho  > wrote:
> If an x-ray machine won't work because the Internet is down, I'm not sure 
> that is responsible. As inefficient as it may be to have a license server 
> on-prem if there is an option to check against one in the public cloud, for a 
> medical use-case, that would make more sense to me.
> 
> Totally agree with you. Unfortunately it's not a problem with the medical 
> providers, it's a problem with the medical devices. Anybody who works in the 
> healthcare vertical will tell you just how bad medical devices are to work 
> with from an IT perspective. And that is part of my original comments.
> 
> In your case, I am not sure I have an answer for you, unfortunately. The 
> public Internet is what it is, mostly best-effort. Your applications and 
> use-cases certainly deserve better than that. I'm not sure how to achieve 
> that as your industry shoves more and more activity into the public Internet 
> domain, for one reason or another.  
> 
> I don't know what it's going to take either. A general shift in mentality 
> from the vendors we use I guess. I'm not sure how you get a bunch of medical 
> providers to tell these companies they need to fix their stuff. You can't 
> exactly use your wallet to force change either. There are only a handful of 
> vendor options out there so there isn't a ton of choice. It's not like you 
> can buy one of 50 different models of CT machines or EHR systems.
> 
> Generally speaking it's not an issue. It's just in crazy times like these 
> where, if congestion on the public internet gets too crazy, that certain 
> platforms might need to be deemed "unnecessary". Is playing Fortnight a 
> right? Is streaming a movie in 4K a right? In cases like San Francisco they 
> have decided that leaving your home for anything other than work or medical 
> care is no longer a right because you're now infringing on other's rights by 
> potentially getting them sick. Maybe 4K Netflix fits into that category if 
> you're causing problems for first responders and hospitals trying to save 
> lives.
> 
> 
> - Mike Bolitho
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:22 AM Mark Tinka  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/Mar/20 16:54, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> > I recently had to reschedule an X-ray because the license manager for the 
> > X-ray machine was acting up.  I don’t think people have a grasp for how 
> > much of the medical infrastructure no longer works when the Internet is 
> > down.
> 
> I get this, to some extent. But also, there is a reason hospitals,
> airports and military installations are either put on special power
> grids or invest plenty of money in backup power.
> 
> If an x-ray machine won't work

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Alexandre Petrescu

Le 17/03/2020 à 19:26, Owen DeLong a écrit :

On Mar 17, 2020, at 02:41 , Alexandre Petrescu
mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

On 16/Mar/20 21:08, Owen DeLong wrote:

This simply isn’t true…

Listen to qualified medical professionals, especially those who
specialize in infectious diseases and epidemiology.

YEs listen to them.

This morning they say: everyone can get it, there is no age or
pre-conditio.

They’ve always said “everyone can get it, there’s no age or
pre-condition”.

The age and pre-existing condition thing comes into play in defining
the probability that you will get a severe case of it. That advice
hasn’t changed.

Owen, we differ.

That advice changed.

I am not an immunologist, not a doctor of medicine, not medical.

I am not an official channel of information.

But that advice changed here: anyone can get it, anyone can get under
respiratory device because of it.

Also,

The good thing I heard today is China agency of press, saying they might
have treatment, some positive sign, not fully positive, just some positive.

Alex

---

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html

If You Are at Higher Risk

alert icon
Who is at higher risk?
Early information out of China, where COVID-19 first started, shows
that some people are at higher risk of getting very sick from this
illness. This includes:

* Older adults
* People who have serious chronic medical conditions like:
o Heart disease
o Diabetes

*
o Lung disease

Alex

That''s it. They dont know, and worse they dont say they dont know.

Actually, they do say they don’t know (about the things they don’t
know). For example:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fabout%2Ftransmission.html

COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning how it spreads,
the severity of illness it causes, and to what extent it may spread in
the United States.

I am an engineer, I am not medical professional, my question is: is
there a device to detect the virus with the crown in the air and
light up a led?

No… No such device exists for Corona Virus at this time. Such a device
is not easily developed.

(we do have such devices for VOC, for CO2, PM2, PM10 pollution, and
many other things in the air; but about virus with a rcown?)

Detecting a virus in the air is much more complicated than detecting
VOC, CO2, PM2.5 (presumably what you meant by PM2), or PM10.

PM2.5 and PM10 are a simple size test. CO2 is a molecule that is easy
to detect through a simple electrochemical process. VOC are
a class of hydrocarbons that all share certain chemical properties
which are easily detected through a simple electrochemical process.

It should also be noted that such devices even for the chemicals they
can detect require a certain concentration of that chemical.

On the other hand, a single airborne virion can be enough to cause a
widespread epidemic. If that single virion is “lucky” enough to find
a compatible host cell and get the cell to start replicating it, then
you can quickly get lots more copies of that virion which then seek out

additional host cells and additional hosts to make even more, and so on.

Viruses are not. Viruses are very tiny intracellular parasites where
very subtle chemical differences cause massively different effects on
humans.

They consist of an RNA or DNA genome surrounded by a protective
virus-coded protein coat. More information here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8174/

Currently, the best we can do is a test to detect coronavirus
infection in a person after they are infected and symptomatic.

So for now, stay indoors with your family and if you’ve got a sick
sense of humor like I do, play one or more of the Pandemic board games
(if you happen to own them).

Owen

Alex

The information on the CDC and WHO websites remains the primary source
of trustworthy information. It may be
incomplete, but if someone is contradicting something there, they’re
very likely to be wrong.

OTOH, anyone selling “survive COVID” or “cure COVID” etc. is
completely untrustworthy and guaranteed to be lying to
you in order to sell a product. Despicable, but common place.

There’s no authoritative way to get false information off the
internet, so we have to combat it as best we can with good
information and education. Even in my own household, this is a
constant battle as my GF continues to bring home
odd superstitious rumors and embellishments from a variety of
inaccurate sources and I constantly have to correct her
perspective.

For up to date local information, check with the local public health
authority in your jurisdiction. In the US, that will usually
be your county public health agency. In some cases, individual
municipalities also have public health departments.

It's the price we pay for hyper-connectedness

RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Emille Blanc

> Why should there be a license server at all? Why should an X-ray machine have 
> an external dependency like that in the first place, even if it’s a local 
> server?

In a world where you can license device performance by the megabit/sec/day, or 
even have to purchase per-use factory reset keys since the manufacture has 
stripped product owners of that right too, this doesn't totally surprise me.

There would have to be a flip side to that coin - I would have to guess (read: 
guess) it's a 'n' x-rays/day to "cut costs to the end user." Great practice on 
paper for little guys, but beyond that...

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:06 AM
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 02:20 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/Mar/20 16:54, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
>> I recently had to reschedule an X-ray because the license manager for the 
>> X-ray machine was acting up.  I don’t think people have a grasp for how much 
>> of the medical infrastructure no longer works when the Internet is down.
> 
> I get this, to some extent. But also, there is a reason hospitals,
> airports and military installations are either put on special power
> grids or invest plenty of money in backup power.

I don’t get this… X-Ray machines (and other critical medical equipment) should 
operate in a fail-safe mode where a license screw up doesn’t prevent the 
machine from operating.

If the hospital hasn’t paid up, find a way to go after the hospital, but don’t 
kill patients to collect your fee.

> If an x-ray machine won't work because the Internet is down, I'm not
> sure that is responsible. As inefficient as it may be to have a license
> server on-prem if there is an option to check against one in the public
> cloud, for a medical use-case, that would make more sense to me.

Why should there be a license server at all? Why should an X-ray machine have 
an external dependency like that in the first place, even if it’s a local 
server?

Owen

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

2020-03-17 Thread Shane Ronan

 Because the hospitals don't own the machines and the companies that do,
charge the hospital per x-ray. The hospitals moved to this model to reduce
their costs during "quiet" periods. And by doing so, put their patients in
jeopardy.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 2:07 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 17, 2020, at 02:20 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16/Mar/20 16:54, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >
> >> I recently had to reschedule an X-ray because the license manager for
> the X-ray machine was acting up.  I don’t think people have a grasp for how
> much of the medical infrastructure no longer works when the Internet is
> down.
> >
> > I get this, to some extent. But also, there is a reason hospitals,
> > airports and military installations are either put on special power
> > grids or invest plenty of money in backup power.
>
> I don’t get this… X-Ray machines (and other critical medical equipment)
> should operate in a fail-safe mode where a license screw up doesn’t prevent
> the machine from operating.
>
> If the hospital hasn’t paid up, find a way to go after the hospital, but
> don’t kill patients to collect your fee.
>
> > If an x-ray machine won't work because the Internet is down, I'm not
> > sure that is responsible. As inefficient as it may be to have a license
> > server on-prem if there is an option to check against one in the public
> > cloud, for a medical use-case, that would make more sense to me.
>
> Why should there be a license server at all? Why should an X-ray machine
> have an external dependency like that in the first place, even if it’s a
> local server?
>
> Owen
>
>

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 02:41 , Alexandre Petrescu  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 16/Mar/20 21:08, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> This simply isn’t true…
>>> 
>>> Listen to qualified medical professionals, especially those who
>>> specialize in infectious diseases and epidemiology.
> 
> YEs listen to them.
> 
> This morning they say: everyone can get it, there is no age or pre-conditio.

They’ve always said “everyone can get it, there’s no age or pre-condition”.

The age and pre-existing condition thing comes into play in defining the 
probability that you will get a severe case of it. That advice hasn’t changed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html

If You Are at Higher Risk
alert icon
Who is at higher risk?
Early information out of China, where COVID-19 first started, shows that some 
people are at higher risk of getting very sick from this illness. This includes:
Older adults
People who have serious chronic medical conditions like:
Heart disease
Diabetes
Lung disease
> That''s it.  They dont know, and worse they dont say they dont know.

Actually, they do say they don’t know (about the things they don’t know). For 
example:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fabout%2Ftransmission.html

COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning how it spreads, the 
severity of illness it causes, and to what extent it may spread in the United 
States.

> 
> I am an engineer, I am not medical professional, my question is: is there a 
> device to detect the virus with the crown in the air and light up a led?

No… No such device exists for Corona Virus at this time. Such a device is not 
easily developed.

> (we do have such devices for VOC, for CO2, PM2, PM10 pollution, and many 
> other things in the air; but about virus with a rcown?)

Detecting a virus in the air is much more complicated than detecting VOC, CO2, 
PM2.5 (presumably what you meant by PM2), or PM10.

PM2.5 and PM10 are a simple size test. CO2 is a molecule that is easy to detect 
through a simple electrochemical process. VOC are
a class of hydrocarbons that all share certain chemical properties which are 
easily detected through a simple electrochemical process.

It should also be noted that such devices even for the chemicals they can 
detect require a certain concentration of that chemical.

On the other hand, a single airborne virion can be enough to cause a widespread 
epidemic. If that single virion is “lucky” enough to find
a compatible host cell and get the cell to start replicating it, then you can 
quickly get lots more copies of that virion which then seek out
additional host cells and additional hosts to make even more, and so on.

Viruses are not. Viruses are very tiny intracellular parasites where very 
subtle chemical differences cause massively different effects on humans.

They consist of an RNA or DNA genome surrounded by a protective virus-coded 
protein coat. More information here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8174/

Currently, the best we can do is a test to detect coronavirus infection in a 
person after they are infected and symptomatic.

So for now, stay indoors with your family and if you’ve got a sick sense of 
humor like I do, play one or more of the Pandemic board games (if you happen to 
own them).

Owen

> 
> Alex
> 
>>> 
>>> The information on the CDC and WHO websites remains the primary source
>>> of trustworthy information. It may be
>>> incomplete, but if someone is contradicting something there, they’re
>>> very likely to be wrong.
>>> 
>>> OTOH, anyone selling “survive COVID” or “cure COVID” etc. is
>>> completely untrustworthy and guaranteed to be lying to
>>> you in order to sell a product. Despicable, but common place.
>>> 
>>> There’s no authoritative way to get false information off the
>>> internet, so we have to combat it as best we can with good
>>> information and education. Even in my own household, this is a
>>> constant battle as my GF continues to bring home
>>> odd superstitious rumors and embellishments from a variety of
>>> inaccurate sources and I constantly have to correct her
>>> perspective.
>>> 
>>> For up to date local information, check with the local public health
>>> authority in your jurisdiction. In the US, that will usually
>>> be your county public health agency. In some cases, individual
>>> municipalities also have public health departments.
>> It's the price we pay for hyper-connectedness (not trying to coin a
>> phrase, hehe).
>> 
>> Everybody (especially the kids) lives on their device 99% of the time.
>> If you're not on their device, you are not relevant to them.
>> 
>> When was the last time you bought a newspaper? How many times do your
>> kids watch the news, either on TV or their device? But they are all over
>> WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, SnapChat, WeChat, et al. And even if they
>> have the "News" app on their phone, they probably have never opened it.

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks