October 2007 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?
by Brandon Butterworth 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying > > for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want. > > > > 24x7. > > > > As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't > > deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time". > > > > All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it. No you're not, it would be considerably more expensive if you were paying for what you think you're buying. You're being sold something less, the small print usually tells you. Broadband may not be so popular if it was provided at the 20kbit/s or so the ISP is budgeting for you using. > What I don't quite get is this, and this is probably skirting > "operational" and more into "capacity planning" : > > * You aren't guaranteed 24/7 landline calls on a residential line; > and everyone here should understand why. > > * You aren't guaranteed 24/7 cellular calls on a cell phone; and > again, everyone here should understand why. > > So please remind me again why the internet is particuarly different? Because we can. That's the packet vs circuit switched difference, we no longer need to contend on time. That's a major benefit but there's always someone who'll abuse it spoiling it for others. > The only reason I can think of is "your landline isn't marketed > as unlimited but your internet is" .. Marketing... brandon

1 0

Re: "ARPANet Co-Founder Predicts An Internet Crisis" (slashdot)
by odlyzko＠dtc.umn.edu 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

Isn't this same Dr. Larry Roberts who 5 years ago was claiming, "based on data from the 19 largest ISPs," or something like that, that Internet traffic was growing 4x each year, and so the world should rush to order his latest toys (from Caspian Networks, at that time)? http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/roberts.caspian.txt All the evidence points to the growth rate at that time being around 2x per year. And now Larry Roberts claims that current Internet traffic is around 2x per year, while there is quite a bit of evidence that the correct figure is closer to 1.5x per year, http://www.dtc.umn.edu/mints Andrew Odlyzko > On Thu Oct 25, Alex Pilosov wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: > > "Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet > switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an > article published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet > traffic is now growing much more quickly than the rate at which router > cost is decreasing, Roberts says. At current growth levels, the cost of > deploying Internet capacity to handle new services like social > networking, gaming, video, VOIP, and digital entertainment will double > every three years, he predicts, creating an economic crisis. Of course, > Roberts has an agenda. He's now CEO of Anagran Inc., which makes a > technology called flow-based routing that, Roberts claims, will solve > all of the world's routing problems in one go." > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/1643248 I don't know, this is mildly offtopic (aka, not very operational) but the article made me giggle a few times. a) It resembles too much of Bob Metcalfe predicting the death of the Internet. We all remember how that went (wasn't there NANOG tshirt with Bob eating his hat?) b) In the words of Randy Bush, "We tried this 10 years ago, and it didn't work then". Everyone was doing flow-based routing back in '90-95 (cat6k sup1, gsr e0, first riverstoned devices, foundry ironcore, etc). Then, everyone figured out that it does not scale (tm Vijay Gill) and went to tcam-based architectures (for hardware platforms) or cef-like based architectures for software platforms. In either case, performance doesn't depend on flows/second, but only packets/second. Huge problem with flow-based routing is susceptibility to ddos (or abnormal traffic patterns). It doesn't matter that your device can route 1mpps of "normal" traffic if it croaks under 10kpps of ddos (or codered/nimda/etc). -alex [not mlc anything] [mlc]

3 2

Hotmail/MSN postmaster contacts?
by Weier, Paul 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

Any Hotmail/MSN/Live postmasters around? My company sends subscription-based news emails -- which go to thousands of users within Hotmail/MSN/Live. I appear to be getting blocked recently after years of success. I have read the postmaster doco at MSN. I have put SPFs for SenderID into many of my news station domains but it doesn't seem to be affecting my success at delivery over other domains which do not yet have any such configs. What am I missing to get un"blacklisted"? I can't seem to find any human contact info on there. Any offline contact would be greatly appreciated. Apologies for the noise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Weier paul(a)ibsys.com

5 4

RE: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
by odlyzko＠dtc.umn.edu 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

Flat rate schemes have been spreading over the kicking and screaming bodies of telecom executives (bodies that are very much alive because of all the feasting on the profits produced by flat rates). It is truly amazing how telecom has consistently fought flat rates for over a century (a couple of centuries, actually, if you include snail mail as a telecom technology), and has refused to think rationally about the phenomenon. There actually are serious arguments in favor of flat rates even in the conventional economic framework (since they are a form of bundling). But in addition, they have several big behavioral economics effect in stimulating usage and in eliciting extra spending. This is all covered, with plenty of amusing historical examples, in my paper "Internet pricing and the history of communications," Computer Networks 36 (2001), pp. 493-517, available at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf Now flat rates are not the answer to all problems, and in particular are not as appropriate if marginal costs of providing service are high, or else if you are trying to limit usage for whatever reason (whether to fend off RIAA and MPAA, or to limit pollution in cases of car transportation). But they are not just an artifact of an irrational consumer preference, as the conventional telecom economics literature and conventional telco thinking assert. Andrew Odlyzko > On Thu 25 Oct 2007, Rod Beck wrote: > The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they=20 > consume each month or the bytes generated by different=20 > applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion=20 > require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers. "Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the UK = for electricity. These are typically used by low income people who have less education than the average population. And yet they can understand the concept of saving money by using more electricity at night. I really think that a two-tiered QOS system such as the scavenger suggestion is workable if the applications can do the marking. Has anyone done any testing to see if DSCP bits are able to travel unscathed through the public Internet? --Michael Dillon P.S. it would be nice to see QoS be recognized as a mechanism for providing a degraded quality of service instead of all the "first class" marketing puffery." It is not question of whether you approve of the marketing puffery or = not. By the way, telecom is an industry that has used tiered pricing = schemes extensively, both in the 'voice era' and in the early dialup = industry. In the early 90s there were dial up pricing plans that = rewarded customers for limiting their activity to the evening and = weekends. MCI, one of the early long distance voice entrants, had all = sorts of discounts, including weekend and evening promotions.=20 Interestingly enough, although those schemes are clearly attractive from = an efficiency standpoint, the entire industry have shifted towards flat = rate pricing for both voice and data. To dismiss that move as purely = driven by marketing strikes me as misguided. That have to be real costs = involved for such a system to fall apart.=20

2 1

Abovenet OC48 down
by Jason Matthews 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

I lost nearly all of my bgp routes to Above a few minutes ago. The NOC has they have an oc48 down some where, as of this writing the location has not been localized. j.

3 4

RE: Hotmail/MSN postmaster contacts?
by Eric Lutvak 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

Paul,, I seem to remember Hotmail having issues with this type of mechanism.. You may want to do a search on "Hotmail Violating RFC"S" or something to that effect to verify this. Have fun ErIc ________________________________ From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Weier, Paul Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:28 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Hotmail/MSN postmaster contacts? Any Hotmail/MSN/Live postmasters around? My company sends subscription-based news emails -- which go to thousands of users within Hotmail/MSN/Live. I appear to be getting blocked recently after years of success. I have read the postmaster doco at MSN. I have put SPFs for SenderID into many of my news station domains but it doesn't seem to be affecting my success at delivery over other domains which do not yet have any such configs. What am I missing to get un"blacklisted"? I can't seem to find any human contact info on there. Any offline contact would be greatly appreciated. Apologies for the noise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Weier paul(a)ibsys.com

1 0

OT: Choice Resale
by Sherry Ollins 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

I would like to apologize to anyone who received an unwanted email from Choice Resale over the last few days. We have a new salesperson who did not realize that this type of email was not appropriate to send to list members. Choice Resale prides itself on being an important and valuable resource to our customers - never an annoyance. Again, please accept our apologies. Kind regards, Sherry Ollins Director of Sales & Operations Choice Resale LLC 310.804.3266 Voice 310.943.0427 Fax

1 0

Re: OT - spam from Choice Resale
by Rack Mountz 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

> On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Jenny Kuntz wrote: > >Jenny Kuntz kinky

1 0

OT - spam from Choice Resale
by Chris Woodfield 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hello, I'm guessing that you've scraped my email address from one or more professional mailing lists (NANOG, cisco-nap, et al). Being in this business, you should probably know that unsolicited marketing emails such as these, even when targeted, are *highly* frowned upon and do very little to enhance your company's reputation. Most call it "spam". More to the point, they annoy the hell out of me personally. Please be assured that thanks to this spam, Choice Resale will never be considered as a candidate for my network resale needs. NANOG, cisco-nsp: any of you get this too? On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Jenny Kuntz wrote: > Hi Chris- > > I wanted to introduce my company as we specialize in finding > creative ways to service your hardware needs and stretch you or > your client's IT budgets. Choice Resale can buy (or taking on > trade) your old or unused network hardware, including such > manufacturers as Cisco, Juniper, Extreme, Foundry and more. > > The company was started to help brokers liquidate equipment on the > secondary market. Originally a broker-to-broker company, we have > now branched out to bring our market knowledge and value directly > to end users. Our experience and connections ensure that you get > the maximum value for each piece of equipment... often equipment > that seemingly has no residual value. > > In addition to buying, we also have an in-house inventory and large > network of resources for new, pre-owned and refurbished equipment. > And, if not in our inventory, we go the extra mile to procure that > obsolete or hard-to-find part and get it to you in the time frame > that you need. > > I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss how we can best help > you with your network hardware needs. I would also be more than > happy to provide you with a bid for any of your deinstalled equipment. > > I look forward to speaking with you! > > Kind regards, > > Jenny Kuntz > Account Executive > 818-512-5358 > jenny(a)choiceresale.com > www.choiceresale.com >

2 1

Verizon has been listening to nanog.
by Leo Bicknell 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm 20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully symmetrical for $65. Strangely enough it's where they compete with CableVisions 30Mbps down, 5Mbps up plan first. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

7 6