Re: Troubleshooting TCP performance tutorial

> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:06:09 -0400 > From: "Abel Alejandro" > > Greetings, > > This past week I have been trying to find the root cause of tcp > performance problems of a few clients that are using a third party metro > Ethernet for transport. RFC2544 tests (Layer 2) and iperf using UDP giv

RE: Netflow Tool

I have to agree. Scales very well, open source, more options than you are likely to ever use. --Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoff...@ip-solutions.net] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 3:02 PM To: Mike Gatti Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Netflow Tool argus, ww

Re: Troubleshooting TCP performance tutorial

http://www.amazon.com/Wireshark-Network-Analysis-Official-Certified/dp/1893939995 Spendy but looks good. I'll have to pick it up when the next consulting check comes in. Thanks! I was sad to see that Eric Hall's book was out of print. At least cheap used copies are available. I forgot my copy a

Re: Troubleshooting TCP performance tutorial

To add on to that. Recently Wireshark Network Analysis was released. It's an excellent book covering wireshark and reading packet captures in general by Laura Chappell. I just finished reading it and I have to say it's an excellent book. Highly recommended. Between those two books I think you'll b

Re: Troubleshooting TCP performance tutorial

In a situation like yours I found Internet Core Protocols: The Definitive Guide by Eric Hall an easy to read guide to insuring that what you are seeing via wireshark. I was able to find an issue with the DF bit in a load balancer that was causing confounding headaches in a network using wireshark

Troubleshooting TCP performance tutorial

Greetings, This past week I have been trying to find the root cause of tcp performance problems of a few clients that are using a third party metro Ethernet for transport. RFC2544 tests (Layer 2) and iperf using UDP give good symmetric performance almost 100% the speed of the circuit. However all

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

I have the same problem getting decent fiber out here. They keep wanting to do a loop clear back to the other side of the state. I will jsut keep building out my towers to towns where I know I can co-lo or get QMOE at least. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message writ

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

In a message written on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:44:04PM +, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the AT&T > CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves? I found someone off list with access to Megapath's "Partner Po

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Sep 17 21:11:58 2010 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 09-Sep-10 -to- 16-Sep-10 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS34984 31696 1.3% 84.7 -- TELLCOM-AS Tellcom Iletisim Hizmetleri 2 - AS3464

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality. >> >> Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of terms >> and conditions, not identical service or tra

RE: Netflow Tool

We've ran Scrutizer and also Netflow Auditor (also a few others) ... they are ok for "smaller" traffic levels (depending of course on sampling rates). None of them held up though to our expectations and we ended up going with Arbor Peakflow and been extremely happy ever since. I'd definitely s

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Sorry, fat-fingered something when I was trying to edit. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: >> No, they bought AT&T, which [...]  But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of >> the new AT&T. Most of the wide-area

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > No, they bought AT&T, which [...]  But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of > the new AT&T. > > As for the two /8s -- not quite.  Back in the 1980s, AT&T got 12/8.  We soon > learned that we couldn't make good use of it, since multiple l

Re: Netflow Tool

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Gatti wrote: > Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data > to export to CSV? > Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome. There are so many ways to do it. Once you capture the flow data and s

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 2:18 PM, JC Dill wrote: Jack Bates wrote: Is consumer grade bandwidth not deprioritised to business grade bandwidth? Prioritization necessarily involves moving some traffic slower (because you can't move traffic faster) than some link (within the provider's network) allows, to al

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality. Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of terms and conditions, not identical service or traffic levels. Charging content providers for higher class s

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

George Bonser wrote: I believe a network should be able to sell priotitization at the edge, but not in the core. I have no problem with Y!, for example, paying a network to be prioritized ahead of bit torrent on the segment to the end Considering yahoo (as any other big freemailer) is (unwilli

Re: Netflow Tool

If you want yours to come with rap videos look at scrutinizer (no I've not ever used it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUPkGvdXDIM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilxknbKJ0Pc On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Scott Berkman wrote: > If you want something scalable and commercial (read: with supp

RE: Netflow Tool

If you want something scalable and commercial (read: with support) check out these guys, I have been using it for a while and it has tons of features and very flexible reporting (including exports to PDF, CSV, etc): http://www.netflowauditor.com/ They have a free version as well with limits.

Re: Netflow Tool

On 17/09/2010, at 21.06, Everton Marques wrote: > > nfdump with custom output. > > Custom output format: -o fmt:.. > This is the most flexibel format, as you can specify yourself how the output > looks like. The output format is defined using element tags as well as plain > ascii text. > > h

Re: Netflow Tool

Always liked Luca Deri's set of solutions: http://www.ntop.org/news.php (not necessarily for netflow, exclusiovely) ***Stefan Mititelu http://twitter.com/netfortius http://www.linkedin.com/in/netfortius On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mike Gatti wrote: > Anyone out there using a good netflow

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice >> in how much speed you want to pay for with each one. > > Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the AT&T > CO, rent un

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Jack Bates wrote: Is consumer grade bandwidth not deprioritised to business grade bandwidth? No. Today a provider doesn't move packets *within their network* faster or slower based on if the recipient is a consumer or business customer. Today, all providers move all packets as fast as th

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >>> True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than >>> another. >> >> This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. >> True net neutrality means no

Re: Netflow Tool

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Mike Gatti wrote: > Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability > data to export to CSV? > Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome. > nfdump with custom output. Custom output format: -o fmt:.. This is the most flexi

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

> It's a matter of viewpoint. It's convenient to talk about net-neutrality when > it's > scoped, but not when we widen the scope. Customer A gets better service than > Customer B because he want to a site that had prioritization. Never mind that > while they fight over the saturated link, Customer

Re: Netflow Tool

argus, www.qosient.com/argus On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 14:49 -0400, Mike Gatti wrote: > Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data > to export to CSV? > Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome. > > Thanks, > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= > Michael

Netflow Tool

Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data to export to CSV? Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome. Thanks, =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Michael Gatti cell.703.347.4412 ekim.it...@gmail.com =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Sep 17, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >> True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another. > > This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. > True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their >

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Leo Bicknell wrote: > Part of the reason for this is "U-Verse" is FTTN, Fiber to the Node. > AT&T has run fiber to my neighborhood, I believe the node in my > case is about 1000 feet away (I drive past it on the way out). The > electronics sit there, so the old model of colocating in the CO and

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

In a message written on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:44:04PM +, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the AT&T > CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves? > > Does that mean no ISPs who buy/rent last+middle mile trans

IPv4 literals and IPv6-only hosts

In planning for IPv4 exhaust, i have been tinkering with NAT64/DNS64 in preparation to launch it with customers. In my experience it works well, my phone has been Ipv6-only + NAT64 for over 6 months no major roadblocks.There have also been other documented NAT64 deployments that work well,

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 11:43 AM, Drew Weaver wrote: How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means, only to see>your carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a check from Netflix? Isn't this where "competition/may the best provider win" comes into play?

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 11:27 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote: How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means, only to see your carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a check from Netflix? The same as I'd feel if netflix paid them for pop tran

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Leo Bicknell wrote: > There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice > in how much speed you want to pay for with each one. Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the AT&T CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves? Do

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

>How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means, >only to see >your carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a >check from Netflix? Isn't this where "competition/may the best provider win" comes into play? -Drew

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:23 09AM, Jack Bates wrote: > > Is it unfair that I pay streaming sites to get more/earlier video feeds over > the free users? I still have to deal with advertisements in some cases, which > generates the primary revenue for the streaming site. Why shouldn't a content > pr

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 10:17 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote: Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on technical, not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, above all other interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both parties. More to the point, even the likes

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 10:22 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: On a TCP/IP network, QOS features work by deprioritising traffic, either by delaying the traffic or by dropping packets. Many ISPs do deprioritise P2P traffic to prevent it from creating congestion, but that is not something that you can productize. At

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

> So you are saying, it's perfectly okay to improve one service over another > by adding bandwidth directly to that service, but it's unacceptable to > prioritize it's traffic on congested links (which effectively adds more > bandwidth for that service). It's the same thing, using two different > m

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 02AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >>> True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than >>> another. >> >> This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. >> True net neutrality means

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

In a message written on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:28:21PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no It may be hard for those in Europe to understand the situation in the US, so let me exp

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

On 9/17/2010 9:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote: So if I'm now downloading my latest FreeBSD via BitTorrent, my basic expectation is ultimately that I'll get fair treatment. And this is always a debate. You might say letting someone with voice or video have queue priority during saturation as being unfa

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

> On 9/16/2010 2:28 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > > If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product. > > +1 -1 > Next we'll be arguing that akamai nodes are evil because they can have > better service levels than other sites. The p2p guys are also getting > special treatment

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:13:48 CDT, Joe Greco said: > Rather than allowing service providers to pick and choose who subscribers > can communicate with, we're much more likely to see regulation intervene > to enforce reasonable rules. We are indeed likely to see regulation intervene to enforce rules.

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized

> > Will the provider unbundle the components so that it's feasible for a > > niche vendor to sell me custom connection services? > > > > No? > > > > Then the provider doesn't get to decide. > > > > It's about control. As the customer, the guy with the green, I should > > have it. A combination

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

> > I DO have a problem with a content provider paying to get priority > > access on the last mile. I have no particular interest in any of the > > content that Yahoo provides, but I do have an interest in downloading > > my Linux updates via torrents. Should I have to go back and bid > > against

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another. This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their service by introd

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

> True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another. This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth. True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their service by introducing destination based priority on congested l