- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

OT - NO (Non-Operational) Question
by Joe Blanchard 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

Happy holidays to all. Quick question with regard "Text/SMS" messaging. I know this is not really the place to ask, so forgive me for bending your eyes. It appears there's really no easy way to determine the origin of a text sent to a cell, at least as far as I can see without involving the provider(611) Any quick links/ideas as to where to research this? Perhaps something obvious I missing? And yes, I tried, lmgtfy.com (: Thanks in advance, and happy holidays/Xmas/New years to all, -Joe Blanchard

3 4

Facebook issue
by andrew.wallace 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

Anyone having issue with Facebook? Andrew

18 19

Re: Facebook issue
by andrew.wallace 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

This is what I was seeing too. ----- Original Message ----- From:Andre Gironda <andre(a)operations.net> To:"nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Cc:andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> Sent:Thursday, 16 December 2010, 21:39:24 Subject:Re: Facebook issue It's returning an empty set of html tags

1 0

Re: Facebook issue
by daodennis＠gmail.com 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

Can we just stop this till it comes back up or move to outages? ------Original Message------ From: Andre Gironda To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Facebook issue Sent: Dec 16, 2010 13:39 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > Anyone having issue with Facebook? It's returning an empty set of html tags Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

1 0

Re: Facebook issue
by Ben Carleton 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

I am seeing the same thing here. Empty HTML tags... (sorry for the top quote) Regards Ben ---------------------------------------- From: "Andre Gironda" <andre(a)operations.net> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:39 PM To: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: Facebook issue On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > Anyone having issue with Facebook? It's returning an empty set of html tags

1 0

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Backdoor Parrot 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many witnesses: my management is pretty disgusted with the badmouthing and accusation slinging on nanog.org btw the demands to disclose confidential data on the blog aren't helping either the budget for hosting will be impacted I guarantee because it came out of folks who are being hassled's budget there is a meeting today to discuss the value of supporting the NANOG community Apparently Comcast's support and sponsorship of NANOG has actually been a ploy to buy our silence, and if we keep talking poorly of them they're going to cut off the funding. Shhhhh don't tell anyone.

15 16

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by dooser＠gmail.com 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

It would certainly serve to make customers angry. They have a choice of video provider netflix vs hulu, but only one isp. In this case the customer drops netflix in an angry huff and goes to hulu. That customer is gone forever. ------Original Message------ From: Patrick Giagnocavo To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Sent: Dec 16, 2010 11:05 AM On 12/16/2010 10:54 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote: > But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around > to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately. > > " I pay Netflix 10$ a month and they wont let me use their service cause I > am on Comcast? I am taking my money to Hulu!" > > Sure netflix is "right" but by the time it matters they are out of business. > Surely serving a "bumper" video at the beginning - "Comcast is trying to charge you more for Netflix - see http://www.netflix.com/comcastripoff/" - would be enough? --Patrick Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

Alleged backdoor in OpenBSD's IPSEC implementation.
by Wil Schultz 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.tech/22557 This appears to be some serious FUD, but if true could have some serious implications for IPSEC stacks in all kinds of equipment. -wil

14 15

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Mikel Waxler 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

It seems you are making some false assertions. 1) "If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable." This is a false conclusion. Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a first come first serve basis. It is shared across all users. So adding a single user only slows the speed of all connections proportionally. In a pool roughly 16 million customers (across all regions) a single new connection would not noticeably effect others. 2) "Comcast claims that a good network maintains a 1:1 " I have never heard them assert that. I have heard them assert that they have peering agreements with other providers. Those agreements assert that if the bandwidth ratio remains the same, or close that neither party will charge the other. For a end user network like comcast, that will never be 1:1. For a larger network connecting to Level3 or TaTa, that might be 1:1. Having a peering agreement does not in any way imply a ratio. 3) You assert that the bandwidth is capped and if Comcast purchased more bandwidth it would not hit the cap. With 16 million customers and ~20mbit connections average they would need a 320 terabit connection to ensure that they never hit the cap. The reality is that most customers do not make uncapped connections. File servers cap bandwidth per user and certain services, like gaming or streaming media have a maximum rate. As long as the average data rate allocated per customer is close to the usage then customers will not notice the difference. Does it matter if it takes 10 seconds or 15 seconds to download a 5 minute youtube clip? Could Comcast purchase more bandwidth and speed up a percentage of their users? Probably yes. Would it drive up the cost of monthly internet? Yes. Is your Comcast internet connection to slow to perform reasonable tasks at a decent rate? Mine is not. I am not asserting that Comcast has enough bandwidth, just that some of your assertions are not valid.

8 8

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by dooser＠gmail.com 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Again, I was not commenting on the state of comcast's pipe. God knows I want it bigger. I was saying that some of the assumptions upon which he made based points were false. ------Original Message------ From: Nathan Angelacos To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Sent: Dec 15, 2010 5:34 PM On 12/15/10 14:13, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 EST, Mikel Waxler said: > >> The reality is that most customers do not make uncapped connections. File >> servers cap bandwidth per user and certain services, like gaming or >> streaming media have a maximum rate. As long as the average data rate >> allocated per customer is close to the usage then customers will not notice >> the difference. Does it matter if it takes 10 seconds or 15 seconds to >> download a 5 minute youtube clip? > > The problem starts when that the choke point is congested enough that the > question isn't "10 seconds or 15", it's "4 mins 30 or 5 mins 30 for that 5 > minute clip". Buffer underruns are incredibly annoying. > Or, from personal experience: The movie stops because the buffer was exhausted, Netflix informs you "Your network connection has changed", shows a progress bar while it buffers /at a lower bitrate/. Then you get to watch the rest of the movie like it was 1995. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0