- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Two Tiered Internet
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

[ SNIP ] > This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco > engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff > (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and > the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal > adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever. Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting of vendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that with an @cisco or at least an "I work for Cisco Marketing" disclaimer. -M<

3 2

Re: Two Tiered Internet
by Fergie 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Bingo. What they are really saying is: "We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need new ways to generate additional revenue." ;-) Cheers, - ferg -- Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com> wrote: The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they need it so they can offer "Better QoS, like the subscribers want". What they really mean, I suspect, is killing third party applications that compete with their own. IMS=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, "QoS" for SBC customer broadband will mean "the speed we advertise so long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if you aren't". [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

3 3

IPv6 transition to cost U.S. Government $75B
by Steven M. Bellovin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3570211 --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

4 3

RE: who's receiving comvalid/bgpsentinel spam? (Re: BGP )
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

> > # your not the only one... > > do you think it's worth complaining, or is this another "hey, > you put your > contact information out there, we're just using it, and the > mail isn't spam, > it's absolutely on-topic?" spammer? > > In my experiencce, these are being originated from here i.e. that poster is a subscriber here and he is harvesting from here. I'll be shopping at the Burlington Mall late this afternoon. Their office is directly next door, on the way to Starbucks. I'll pop over and see if they have a valid podstal address (fraudulent domain complaint) and perhaps I will pop in and ask who is in charge of The Annoying Spam Department and request removal in person. -M<

1 0

RE: NAT Configuration for Dual WAN Router
by Rossi, Jeremy 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: joe(a)sendjoeanemail.com > > I've been trying over and over to figure this one out, but I'm just > hitting > the end of my wits. We have a remote office that can only get 768Kbps DSL, > which they've not totally maxed out. So management's solution now is to > buy > a second DSL line, but they won't let me buy a dual WAN router (in case > they > add a 3rd DSL line). Have you looked OpenBSD with pf? You can create rules that map outbound session to a different DSL router, interface, and/or gateway based on any number of rules. The man page pf.conf[1] and more precisely the "ROUTING" and "POOL OPTIONS" section will allow you to create very dynamic rules to define how to handle all outbound routing load sharing. NATing also comes along for the ride. A basic example is in their FAQ[2]. This type of setup is not the most common so a straight up HOWTO is most likely not going to be found. Sorry I am not able to give a more direct and Linux based answer. [1]: http://tinyurl.com/74yyx [2]: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html -Jeremy This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. D.B. Zwirn & Co., L.P. reserves the right to archive and monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.

2 1

who's receiving comvalid/bgpsentinel spam? (Re: BGP )
by paul＠vix.com 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

is anybody else receiving this spam when they advertise a new AS nowadays? (i'm trying to figure out which whois information is being policy-violated and who to complain about, but if i'm the only one receiving it, i may JHD.) re: # From: "Antony Gullusci" <gullusci(a)comvalid.com> # To: <paul_vixie(a)isc.org> # Subject: BGP # Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:09:19 +0100 # X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 # # Hi! I am Antony Gullusci from Comvalid, and I'd like to give you some # additional information on Comvalid and what we can do for you, regarding # BGP. # # In the past 10 years, our mother company Inrete has made a good name # managing Autonomous System and BGP routers. # # Now Comvalid offers to the broader market the precious internal tools that # Inrete developed in order to manage the Autonomous System of its clients. # # Since you manage a newly announced AS, we propose you free of charge, the # use of our BGPsentinel service for one month. # BGPsentinel operates in the following way: # # 1) constantly sniffs in different points the BGP traffic between BGP router # receiving the full Internet mesh # 2) extracts and stores all the data regarding the AS numbers and NETs of # interest, and stores such data in a database # 3) generates intelligent and context rich alarms, on the base of the # detected and stored info # 4) makes all the history pertaining the collected data always available for # post-debug and forensic # # You will have a user & password to access the data regarding you systems, # and will be able to define specific alarms to be sent to you by mail, after # one month the only thing we will ask you is to fill a short survey about the # service with your opinion and your advices. # # If you are interest in having a better control on what happens to your NETs # and ASes, just reply me back confirming that you are interested in having # the following AS and NET's : 24051 # 203.119.20.0/24 # # Checked by BGPsentinel # # Looking forward to hear from you! # # Antony Gullusci # Email gullusci(a)comvalid.com # # BGPsentinel Web http://www.comvalid.com/?pag=bs # __________________________________________ # Comvalid USA # 35 Corporate Drive # Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 # Tel +1 (781) 583-7565 # http://www.comvalid.com #

4 3

Unrealistic, temporary, time-to-market pricing [was: Re: Two Tiered In ternet]
by Fergie 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

The [renamed] subject says it all. Current pricing schemes in the the digital connectivity business these days reflect nothing, and I mean nothing, that has to do with nothing, and is indicative of nothing. All wrapped up for your Christmas shopping pleasure in nothingness. I hoped we all learned something here -- and that is, service providers are sometimes idiots. Sometimes even more than sometimes. But, hey, remember -- they have a lot to lose, too, so it makes 'em a bit crazy when everything they know changes.... No technical issues here, just marketroid & financial sleight of hand. We're all getting sucked into technical debates over money issues, basically, and it is rather discouraging to see engineering folk get all wrapped up in this crud. Move along -- nothing to see here. - ferg ps. I broke my [short] silence here because I think this is an important issue -- don't let these pukes pull the wool over your eyes on this crappola. -- JC Dill <lists05(a)equinephotoart.com> wrote: Internet end-users are paying a larger share of the costs of the system than broadcast radio or TV end-users are paying (which here in the US is 0%). [all good points, but -- snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

[bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com: Re: Two Tiered Internet]
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

somhow, this esacped into a private thread. i'm pretty sure that there is a fairly high thermal component to this thread and not too many photons... so this is it for me on this thread... ----- Forwarded message from bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com ----- > > > You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions. > > > Who said this had anything to do with "the Internet"? > > > > well... the press? the telco marketing droids?? > > It seems to be the press and the Google lobbyist droids trying to stir > things up that use the "Internet" word the most. A problem is some > reporters think anything that uses IP (Internet Protocol) means the > same thing as "the Internet." that is common... in part 'cause you can't ever tell if its -not- part of the Internet. (I note the subject line of this thread talks about a two-tier Internet... which we are both actively responding to... :) If its not Internet, then lets call it what you claim it is, private virtual pipes, some of which touch the commodity Internet and some which run a private, IP-based network for Telcos use only. Right there next to the dedicated copper, lambdas, and glass that they lease to others. > Most, but not all, of the telco droids have tried to stay on message, > that this is about bringing more competition to video. It is not the > Internet, it is not cable TV, it is IPTV. But when people expand the > acronym IPTV, it seems to come out as Internet video. Much like VOIP > seems to turn into Voice over the Internet, even though a lot of VOIP > uses private networks. -IF- we can be assured that the telco/ folks -REALLY- will keep (or cable co) parts of thier network fabric isolated and disconnected from the Internet, and have the ability for random, third-party inspection that these closed, private networks that use IP -STAY- that way, then sure. > > they should not call it "the Internet" then should they? :) > Maybe it would have helped if the technologists had chosen less similar > names for the network ("Internet") and the networking protocal ("IP"). > There are lots of networks using IP which are not the Internet. again, its nearly impossible to tell when/if an IP network is or is not part of what might be part of the Internet. Mobil nodes are common and mobil networks are becoming so. Virtually every (save two) IP based network that I have touched in the last 25 years has at one point or another touched other IP based networks... thus becoming part of the Internet... as seen by others. That said, there are many IPbased networks which rarely touch what most think of as the Internet. I've come to the conclusion that the commodity or commercial services Internet is a small subset of the larger Internet. as usual, YMMV. --bill ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
by Fergie 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Martin, You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course. QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist. What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best- effort is somehow good? Never sell it. This vein will come back and bite you guys who think like this. - ferg -- "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan(a)verisign.com> wrote: > What I'm interested in is how the two service > providers will build a two tiered Internet. The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation. Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which is basically a billing network. I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion control. For example, CO's have call overflow mechanisms to tandem switch points which basically seek out excess capacity and use it as overflow for call termination if and when possible. I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and other traffic, non premium traffic, "got a fast busy". -M< -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: Two Tiered Internet
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

> > but do i get "the Internet"? ... your claim is that No, my claim is that "users" are not paying the full boat. Almost all the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or another, interest expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due ~2008, etc. They aren't making enough money. That may be a market forces reality, but that doesn't mean the services aren't under priced. > > and as others have cleverly pointed out, what i really > am buying is full employment for the AP departments of > telco/isps. :) You're paying pensions for bankruptcy court employees in perpetuity and Michael Moore documentaries. :) I think the better questions for this thread may be: 1. Why NOT charge for priority access and transit 2. Is it inequitable to anyone, and why? 3. If there is an inequity, does it really matter?

3 2