August 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
by Michel Py 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

> William B. Norton wrote: > Three said that these transit prices were TOO LOW, in > one case they paid about double these numbers. It was > interesting that these three were a content company, The really interesting question IMHO is this: does said content company also peers, or just buys transit? I read in Bill Norton's papers that a content company is a good candidate to peer with large tier-2s. And, an even more interesting question is: if said content company does peer, what kind of price would they be available to negotiate with their transit if they stopped peering and stick to transit-only? > Given the adjustment, I thought you might be interested > in how the U.S. transit prices compare against a handful > of other Peering Ecosystems: > The Cost of Internet Transit in.. > Commit AU SG JP HK USA > 1 Mbps $720 $625 $490 $185 $125 > 10 Mbps $410 $350 $150 $100 $80 > 100 Mbps $325 $210 $110 $80 $45 > 1000 Mbps $305 $115 $50 $50 $30 Someone mentioned that this was comparing apples to oranges. Indeed it is, but nevertheless remains extremely interesting as related to a thread we had earlier about regional differences in P2P. The way I see things, we are greatly unequal depending on where we live. However, I have theorized the following thoughts that I would like to run by the list: <me puts the asbestos suit on> No matter where you leave, the deal you get as a hard-core swapper (remember, we're talking about P2P now) is about what it costs to buy or build transit in bulk. The operator/provider makes no profit out of hardcore swappers, just tries not to loose money. In other words: in Australia, an unlimited and unmetered megabit residential link will cost hundreds of dollars, which is about the transit cost. In California, I pay $36.99/mo for 2.5 mpbs unlimited unmetered, which is also about the transit cost. </me puts the asbestos suit on> > one can pick up a used 7500 series router equipment > now for about $9K ! The configuration was with an OC-3, > and FastE for peering, for about 25% of the new cost Sounds like a lot of money to me for a 7500; if this is the eBay cost only it's more around $3.5k I would say. For $9k one could get a 12008. OTOH if it includes re-licensing and some support it sounds about right. > Deepak Jain wrote: > Other than packet buffer depths and some theoretical ACL > limits, is there any reason why a 7600 network would be > worse than a 12000 built one? <me owns a few Cisco shares> There is one: Cisco wants you to buy 12000s. Don't expect them to make it easy to run the same network on 7600s :-) </me owns a few Cisco shares> That being said, what you mention is probably why you find 12000s for peanuts on eBay..... > Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > and I honestly do not believe that every network is > selling below cost. No, but there are enough to do it that the other ones are not too far behind. Economics 101: low prices mean there is more supply than demand, which also means that either the demand has to grow or the supply diminish. A common strategy is to sell at loss to capture a better/significant market share, which will ensure that the taxpayer and shareholders will pay the bankruptcy bill, as the disruptions caused by disappearance of a large fish are even more costly. Michel.

1 0

New IANA IPv6 allocation for RIPE NCC (2001:4600::/23)
by Doug Barton 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following one (1) IPv6 /23 block to the RIPE NCC: 2001:4600::/23 RIPE NCC For a full list of IANA IPv4 allocations please see: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space> - -- Doug Barton General Manager, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBIVY/wtDPyTesBYwRAi8/AJ44TNst0AM4xqOHDXZcmo+rCqOP1QCbBR0g zhtl1VzZ7/2W7luxyN/b/NU= =5pBC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 1

RE: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
by Burton, Chris 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

Those problems you describe may be the providers initially and on a on going basis, but they can very quickly become your problem. The SLA you have with your provider may allow for a recoup of some money lost in the form or credits or contract termination; but in the end money lost is money lost and I don't believe upper management would take kindly to any Network Engineer saying "oh well" to any issue at the provider level inadvertent or not. Your selection of provider and the understanding of the providers network and how it will work with your environment is paramount. Chris Burton Network Engineer Walt Disney Internet Group: Network Services The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact Walt Disney Internet Group at 206-664-4000. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick W Gilmore Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:51 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: Patrick W Gilmore Subject: Re: Current street prices for US Internet Transit On Aug 16, 2004, at 3:15 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > >> What do you care which routers they use? I've seen networks buy the >> most expensive routers and run a crappy network, and I've seen people >> run stable networks on the cheap. I just want my bits to flow quickly >> and reliably. I don't really care if you do it on Juniper, Force10, >> cisco, or tin-cans-and-string. > > Well, with the GSR (and alike) you're paying for high MTBF, large > buffers > and quick re-routing when something happens, so yes, this is a quality > issue and that's why you should care and make an informed decision. I submit that the equipment in the network is far, far less important than the people running the equipment. I repeat: "I've seen networks buy the most expensive routers and run a crappy network, and I've seen people run stable networks on the cheap." I do not care what equipment the network uses, as long as my packets get to their destination reliably and quickly. This may or may not place restrictions on the equipment to be used (can you get my packets there "reliably and quickly" on tin-cans-and-string?), and it almost certainly places restrictions on who runs that equipment, but those are the provider's problem, not mine. -- TTFN, patrick

2 1

RE: WashingtonPost computer security stories
by Joe Johnson 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

This was a great product, and the closest thing I have seen to a really easy Linux. I picked up an Lindows box for a friend that didn't have much for a PC budget, and played with it for a little while. It was really the only version I would ever consider replacing my Windows box with. BTW, what versions of Linux does everyone consider the easiest? I've tried a few I would try in certain places, but which do you all think is the easiest? Joe Johnson > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon@radianz.com] > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:48 AM > To: Joe Johnson > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu; Owen DeLong; owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: WashingtonPost computer security stories > > > I can agree that Linux makes a good product for the niche market that it > > fills now, but there needs to be a dumbed-down version for home machines > > that is widely available and supported across the market for it to > > really make an impact. > > http://www.linspire.com > > Small computer shops can buy Seagate hard drives with this > preinstalled. I believe WalMart sells computers with Linspire > instead of Windows. The product was previously named Lindows > until Microsoft started attacking them in foreign courts > where they actually have some rights to Windows as a brand name. > > -- Michael Dillon > > >

2 1

RE: WashingtonPost computer security stories
by Joe Johnson 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

Amen! I gave my Mac PowerBook G3 to a friend when it got too slow for my needs, but I will say this: I've never missed a computer as much as I miss that one. I've searched and searched for one I would consider cost effective for my needs, but I have yet to find one on eBay or in any resale shops. I picked up a Compaq TC1000 that I threw a build of Gentoo on for traveling with. Boy, I miss my Mac. :) Joe Johnson > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@isc.org] > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:20 AM > To: Joe Johnson > Subject: Re: WashingtonPost computer security stories > > > On 15 Aug 2004, at 15:31, Joe Johnson wrote: > > > Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face over Linux vs. > > Windows, but the big point is: what comes on your machine when you buy > > it? > > Mac OS X. > > :-) >

1 0

C&W Support Number
by Brent_OKeeffe＠asc.aon.com 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

All, What is the new # for the Cable and Wireless support center for Internet Circuits. (800) 663-9932 is just ringing busy. Thanks, Brent

2 1

RE: WashingtonPost computer security stories
by Joe Johnson 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

Owen Wrote: >Well, then bad hardware and application software are a lot more prevalant >under Windows than Linux. I install/deinstall games and other application >software all the time under Linux. I have the usage pattern you describe >for others (except the part about patching my system regularly), and I just >don't have any difficulty keeping the system up for months at a time, >not having to reinstall the OS until I choose to upgrade major versions, >and, generally, it just keeps on ticking. > >Admittedly, it's even better under MacOS with Apple hardware, but, given >the extent to which Linux is more reliable than Windows in the same usage >pattern as you described, I find it hard to blame the hardware. > >Windows is a poorly designed operating system, which, although they have >plugged lots of holes, is constantly discovering new ones. Worse yet, >Micr0$0ft has always chosen a "functionality at any cost" approach to >their software, so, if they want to implement a feature and it can't >be done securely, they implement rather than scale back. Yes, their >current default settings are more secure than ever before, but, they're >still pretty leaky. > >Owen Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face over Linux vs. Windows, but the big point is: what comes on your machine when you buy it? Windows does. Now, there is definitely a big backstory to why it does, but the point is that people buy it knowing (or maybe not knowing) that it is a flawed product. The manufacturers still put it on the machines because they know people will buy it and because Microsoft makes it cheap for them. I can agree that Linux makes a good product for the niche market that it fills now, but there needs to be a dumbed-down version for home machines that is widely available and supported across the market for it to really make an impact. The closest thing now is maybe a Red Hat or a Mandrake, but both require you to pay for their OS (or download the CDs in iso format and burn them to CD yourself, a task beyond most suburban soccer moms and the like). Not everyone needs kernel level access and the such, they just want a machine that turns on and gets them online and their email (whether that's IE and Outlook or Thunderbird and Firefox). Now, I love Gentoo and use it on my 2nd home desktop and for the servers at work (the few I trust on Linux, haha. Just kidding, we use Linux first and Windows as a last resort). But, the first time I installed Gentoo it took me three tries to get it right. Now, Windows installs right the first time, every time, and lays itself out in regular plain English. The day that someone creates a wildly popular, easy to install Linux that has a basic user interface much like Windows, then Linux will win. Unfortunately, the only possible business model that works is to market such a product for a profit, not for free. Joe Johnson

4 3

// sorry, dismiss it ... Re: WashingtonPost computer security stories
by Alexei Roudnev 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex(a)relcom.net> To: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex(a)relcom.net>; "Joe Johnson" <jjohnson(a)jmdn.net>; "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 2:01 PM Subject: Re: WashingtonPost computer security stories

1 0

FW: WashingtonPost computer security stories
by Joe Johnson 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> Retina scan on something and some virus/worm got in and it took some >> registry editting and safe mode work to get it removed - and I know what >I >> am doing. > >As far as I know, there is no remotely exploitable hole in windows that >doesn't have a patch for it, nothing majorly in the wild anyway. I run my >fully patched XP laptop without firewall directly connected to the >internet all the time and the above you mention doesn't happen to me. > >A lot of the problems with windows that people complain about, isn't >Microsoft caused apart from them designing a bad driver/library/registry >model for how things are installed and ran. I usually run windows boxes >for two-three years without reinstalling them, other people have to >re-install every 3-6 months. Looking at their usage pattern and mine, they >install games and other programs and de-install them all the time, whereas >I usually stick to a fixed set of programs and rarely install new ones, >and I always apply new patches when they're available via Windows Update. >I can also run my machine for months without it crashing, which seems an >unobtainable feat for a lot of other people. I see a pattern. > >Bad hardware and application software cause a lot more problems than >the operating system itself. > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se I agree totally. The only times I ever have to reinstall a machine is when a user has installed a virus or malware on it. We use a NAT firewall on each remote office and at each teleworker's house (usually a basic Linksys or Netgear residential or SoHo class router) and Symantec Corporate AV that updates from the main NOC's LiveUpdate server. All patch the Windows Updates automatically and I've never had trouble with devices catching the Nachi/Welchia or Blaster Worm, because we stayed on top of patches. There should never be a reason to reinstall Windows except some software that a person installed or hardware failure. Joe Johnson P.S.: Teenagers really are the exception, though. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've had to help my sister over the phone because her kids installed something or another that caused the system to grind to a halt.

1 0

Re: WashingtonPost computer security stories
by Brandon Butterworth 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

> I put the blame not on the AV vendors but strictly on MS for building a > sieve. I blame the people who purchase sieves.

1 0