May 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 08 May '01

08 May '01

> > > call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small > > > entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up > > > there with those of the ILECs. > > > > 1) You quoted me out of context. 2) Do you have a point? Obviously the > > above are not small entrepreneurs. But then, I never said they were. > > A very simple one: we are not seeing much in the way of serious > competition, and HR1542 will simply make things worse. Couldn't agree with you more. I also long for the days when I was in an academic environment with folk capable of closely reading text. You have attributed to me opinions I don't have and knocked down a straw man. Zero progress made. good luck, fletcher

1 0

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Paul Vixie 08 May '01

08 May '01

peter(a)dataloss.nl (Peter van Dijk) writes: > I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong > peering policies are not good for the Internet. Well, before I returned to PAIX, I was CTO of MFN. MFN had bought Abovenet, and I learnt to respect strong peering policies. Abovenet's peering policy was, and as far as I know still is, very "strong". It's strongly _open_, which means it's different from the purported C&W policy being discussed here this week. But while different it is still "strong". I think what you were looking to say above is that "*closed* peering policies are not good for the Internet." Probably noone will *publically* disagree with such sentiments. Not on nanog, anyway.

1 0

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> > BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be > > aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and > > the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which > > was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable > > network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed > > a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more > > arguably a public resource. > > Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities > could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant > cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the > reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much > commercial success. If you can't tell the legal difference between the above cases, I recommend you stay out of this discussion. > As to "small entrepreneurs" - that may have once been true, but I wouldn't > call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small > entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up > there with those of the ILECs. 1) You quoted me out of context. 2) Do you have a point? Obviously the above are not small entrepreneurs. But then, I never said they were. good luck, fletcher

4 5

RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Roeland Meyer 07 May '01

07 May '01

> From: Fletcher E Kittredge [mailto:fkittred@dargo.gwi.net] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:32 AM > > > Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" > agreements, with many > > municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a > regulated monopoly. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > municipalities Okay, so we know I can't touch-type and have lexdysic fingers. I would think that this is well-known by now. I'm a programmer fercrisake! I would think that the average reader here has a better parser than g++. > > Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets. > > Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion? I am > located in the US and thought you were talking about the US. > > If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? > Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles > and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a > modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked > other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. Falcon Cable ... Morgan Hill, CA ... to name one of many. Livermore CA... for another. San Jose .... and the list goes on... > Don't get me wrong, I am *very* much in favor of open access, have a > good business selling IP over cable plant and would love to do it over > Adlephia/TWAOL/AT&T plant, I just hate to see yet another bit 'o BS > propagated. I tried, in 1993, to drop a satellite head-end into a retirement trailer^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmobilehome park. This was all private property. The deal was a co-op where ech resident pays a monthly fee to the owners of the park and we ran co-ax to feed all the residents, on a cost-recovery basis. Upfront capitalization was amortised over 3 years. City council got wind of it and threatened the park's owner with cancellation of their operating permits becasue such a plant put the city at risk of violating their exclusive franchise agreement with Falcon Cable, for cable TV provisioning. This caused me to do some research into this. Yes, these exclusive contracts still exist today as part of the cable franchise system. I should also tell you that I worked for PacificBell Broadband, until 1997, where this also became an issue. The LA beachhead was largely stone-walled becasue of this. > BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be > aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and > the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which > was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable > network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed > a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more > arguably a public resource. Rights of way were granted, to cable operators, on a city-by-city basis, all based on exclusive franchise agreements, nation-wide. At that time, all they were pumping down those pipes were analog video. Now, that they are pumping digital data streams, those contracts have not changed. What is significantly different is that the telcos have no such exclusivity, per city. This is not competition, it is market lock-out. Each cable operator has a proprietary exclusive market lock on the city of operation. Many of these contracts were bought by, what is now AT&T, when they bought all those cable operators. Cable systems, plants, and rights of way, were specifically excluded from regulatory effects and ignored by the 1996 telecom act. Cable operators are unregulated local monopolies.

4 3

RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Barrows, Jeff 07 May '01

07 May '01

>>>> From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:peter@dataloss.nl] > > Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The > Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just > peering). > I suspect [but don't know, as I don't work for UUNET anymore] that you are confusing 'paid peering' with the transit product, when configured to exchange only a specific subset of the possible routes. The real difference is this: Do you get a different price /PER MB/ for getting only a subset of routes as opposed to getting full routes from them? If you are still unsure, just ask UUNET if they consider you a peer or a customer-- they'll tell you. Hint: If you send them money, you are a customer. Many, many, many, [a whole bunch of] customers of major networks pay full transit prices from upstream transit providers, and only elect to receive [or use] that upstream providers' customer routes. The smallest networks out there can configure their boxes to do this, and it doesn't mean that they are a paid peer of any given network. It just means that they are deciding where to send their traffic. I know some providers offer a lower-priced peering-routes-only product. I don't think such a UUNET product exists. Perhaps the sales person led you to believe that it was paid peering, or the person you heard this from didn't convey it to you correctly? (I don't mean to imply that UUNET sales folks would do this, just that most large sales teams tend to get a few folks that cloud product definitions from time to time.) It is good to see that various larger providers (i.e., Genuity's AS1 Express [paid-peering] product) are offering this service. I am curious as to how they feel it is affecting their revenue, as it has the potential to get a lot of customers to convert from full-price transit to a cheaper price for a subset of routes, or lead to a cannibalization of some of their largest customers. Presumably, one could limit the set of customers that qualified for such a product to some smaller subset that was of interest. It would seem more fitting for networks that are less-peered to offer such a product, as they can pass some savings on to customers that don't require them to pay for traffic to go off-net via their costly upstream transit links. For networks that are essentially fully peered, the economics of offering such a product aren't as clear to me. I am interested in hearing thoughts on this topic offline. - jsb P.S. Again, I don't work for UUNET, and don't intend to speak for them or discuss anything proprietary to UUNET.

1 0

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> It appears that there is a lot of shooting from the hip going on here. > cable regulation is fraught with legal complications and is changing > rapidly right now, and the layman anaysis going on here isn't doing the > topic justice. Absolutely. My point is these folk really don't know what they are talking about. Ignore this discussion until it becomes fact based. > If there is any intrest, I believe that Martin County (Fl)'s 1999 > agreement with Adelphia is online someplace, I could track down a > URL for it. That would be a large step forward :) regards, fletcher

1 0

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> > If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? > > Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles > > and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a > > modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked > > other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. > > Falcon Cable ... Morgan Hill, CA ... to name one of many. Livermore CA... > for another. San Jose .... and the list goes on... OK Roeland, spin me out the quotation/URL to the contract that says any of these municipalities gives exclusive access to cable companies to provide high speed IP via cable technology. I would be interested in hearing about contracts which are exclusive just for video, but that is off, off-topic. > I tried, in 1993, to drop a satellite head-end into a retirement > trailer^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmobilehome park. This was all private property. The > deal was a co-op where ech resident pays a monthly fee to the owners of the > park and we ran co-ax to feed all the residents, on a cost-recovery basis. > Upfront capitalization was amortised over 3 years. City council got wind of > it and threatened the park's owner with cancellation of their operating > permits becasue such a plant put the city at risk of violating their > exclusive franchise agreement with Falcon Cable, for cable TV provisioning. > This caused me to do some research into this. Yes, these exclusive contracts > still exist today as part of the cable franchise system. I should also tell > you that I worked for PacificBell Broadband, until 1997, where this also > became an issue. The LA beachhead was largely stone-walled becasue of this. Roeland, it is almost halfway through 2001. We are discussing today, not remote history. Further, we are discussing Internet access, not video. This is an IP list, not a CATV list. > Rights of way were granted, to cable operators, on a city-by-city basis, all > based on exclusive franchise agreements, nation-wide. At that time, all they > were pumping down those pipes were analog video. Now, that they are pumping > digital data streams, those contracts have not changed. What is > significantly different is that the telcos have no such exclusivity, per > city. This is not competition, it is market lock-out. Each cable operator > has a proprietary exclusive market lock on the city of operation. Many of > these contracts were bought by, what is now AT&T, when they bought all those > cable operators. Cable systems, plants, and rights of way, were specifically > excluded from regulatory effects and ignored by the 1996 telecom act. Roeland, show me a current contract that provides for exclusive access. We are post telco access of 1996 :) good luck, fletcher

1 0

Re: black hat .cn networks
by Justin Hinderliter 07 May '01

07 May '01

And, as an additional note, I'd called my brother out on the west coast to warn him to take a look at his webservers, especially NT and Linux platforms. He said at the time that he didn't see anything odd, but he'd look again. 30 minutes later, he's got 4 cats running in his office saying that all their NT webservers were hacked. A malenky of the ole in-out, in-out, droogies.

1 0

RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Roeland Meyer 07 May '01

07 May '01

> From: Greg Maxwell [mailto:gmaxwell@martin.fl.us] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:15 AM > > On Mon, 7 May 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > [snip] > > Cable operators are unregulated local monopolies. > > No. They are regulated, by the franchise agreement. If the > agreement isn't > strong enough to ensure the highest best use of public > right-of-way then > it's a failure of the local government for not making it so (or the > state/FCC for forbiding the local governments from placing certain > requirements in the agreement). The problem is that the local govs seldom "get it right" or, as mentioned earlier, simply don't care (the latter being more prevalent). Most of this is out of band, as far as state PUCs are concerned. Ergo, there is no recourse or appeal. This is a major disconnect in the system process.

1 0

Re: Looking for BGP resource utilization information...
by Richard A. Steenbergen 07 May '01

07 May '01

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:45:18AM -0400, Thomas Gainer wrote: > > Does anyone know of any good papers that explain memory resource > utilization during the BGP table construction. > > Post Note: Yes, I have read the RFC. I am looking for additional > resources. For traditional implementations of BGP. as described by the rfc (btw the rfc is pretty loaded with mistakes, draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12 is a bit better though not perfect itself), I think the word you're looking for is "lots". Memory requirements will theoretically differ quite a bit between implementations, and depending on the routes you receive. For example every half-decent implementation I'm aware of uses an attriute hash to reduce memory requirements where multiple prefixes share common attributes. But if you receive routes with all unique attributes (for example by randomizing the med value or somesuch), you'd burn through memory a LOT quicker than normal (sh ip bgp sum and see where your memory is going :P). Traditional RIBs using patricia trees are also quite bad for BGP, in addition to burning memory they they are extremely inefficient for the actual BGP usage of insertions and deletions with a known prefix length. I'd say that 95% of the fault of slow converging and memory sucking BGP can rest squarely on the shoulders of bad implementations. If there are any papers on BGP memory usage and performance of the actual algorithms used, I'd love to see one. I did a quick check on citeseer and didn't turn up much of interest. The only things notable were the following, still not very useful: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/422681.html http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/333036.html -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0