March 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
by Howard, W. Lee 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Jared Mauch > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:06 PM > To: Paul Vixie > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:32:33PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > What i've done is rate-limit TCP inbound to be around > 75-80% of the link speed to force things to back-off and > leave space for my UDP packet streams. > > I think one of the major problems is that very few > people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 > frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because > they can't set these more granular settings on their > systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I > think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not > designed for high pps rates.. That's interesting. . . where's the intersection of the packet size curve and the latency curve? I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and intervleaving? I'm outside of that "very few people," but I could imagine wanting dynamic control--one packet size (latency) for a certain calling plan (calls within the LAN, maybe even to anywhere on my network if I control end-to-end QoS, and local calls) but another for long distance. > - jared Lee

2 1

RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
by Howard, W. Lee 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Robert Bonomi > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 7:05 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors > > > Dunno where you got the 'more than 2 subscribers' bit as > defining over- subscribed. Unless you > mis-read/mis-interpreted my remark about "50% > utilization" for VoIP data. Active VoIP transmission is > about 80kbps. Depends on the codec. Yes, most people default to G.711, but my experience with G.729 and header compression has been good, and closer to 12Kbps. I definitely agree that it's much more symmetrical than web traffic, and could therefore mess with someone's capacity planning. Denying traffic that doesn't conform to your engineering is one response. Re-engineering is another. Do what you will with your network, I know what I'd do with mine. Lee

6 6

RE: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Landers, David 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Are you saying XO is giving your biz DSL higher QoS than consumer DSL? I can see them providing the premium services (unblocked ports, etc., higher CIR between POP/gateway and CPE), but be surprised if they're giving your traffic priority on their backbone. At least that's not typical (Genuity, VZ, BA, SBC, L3 history). _____________ David Landers IP Operations Engineering Level 3 Communications _____________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Eric A. Hall Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:32 AM To: Greg Boehnlein Cc: Brad Knowles; Bill Nash; Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance On 3/31/2005 9:25 AM, Greg Boehnlein wrote: > On a different tact, where I -THINK- the market will eventually end up is > w/ different classes of BroadBand service, whereby QOS and priority will > be given to those that wish to pay for it. The $14.95 services will be a > best-effort, and the $59.95 services will have priority. We've there already. When I had my home-office DSL package from XO it was much more expensive than consumer DSL from pacbell, for example, but gave me the ability to run local servers, non-blocking network ranges, etc. Meanwhille, cable contracts are pretty much written such that the service is only supposed to be used for ~web browsing and other basic tasks, and if you want reliability or better bandwidth then call the business service number. I don't see this much in the local provider market though. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

1 0

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Who said it was QoS? - ferg -- Bill Nash <billn(a)billn.net> wrote: Why exactly are networks taking this stance to QoS VOIP traffic, generated by their customers, into uselessness? -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

2 1

Vonage may route 911 call to Congress, FCC
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

C|Net: "Net phone provider Vonage may ask Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to help it solve problems with SBC over subscriber access to the 911 emergency call network." http://news.com.com/Vonage+may+route+911+call+to+Congress%2C+FCC/2100-7352_… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

cincinnati-oh.gov / rcc.org contact please?
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

As above. Can an operator from the Regional Computing Center / Cincinnati Ohio contact me offlist, please? -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

Contact from ACM?
by Mark Newton 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

I need to talk to someone who can update the bogon filters on www.acm.org. Attempts to reach technical contacts via the website have failed, which is a bit surprising given the nature of the org. If anyone reading this is an ACM member who can pass this message along to someone who cares I'd appreciate it. Thanks, - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton(a)internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton(a)atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223

2 1

AOL's brains on the floor?
by Michael Loftis 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Anyone else confirm? Looks like AIM, www.aol.com...maybe more, are all down form various POPs here.

1 1

DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?
by Florian Weimer 30 Mar '05

30 Mar '05

ISC SANS has recently disclosed yet another suspected DNS cache poisoning attack. I reach a different conclusion. based on publicly available data. Maybe there is unpublished information which suggests a different view. Unofficial name servers which pose as authoritative for well-known zones have been around for ages. An astonishingly large number is officially authoritative for (at least somewhat) frequented zones, and from time to time, your resolvers receive authority sections containing leaked unofficial data. I noticed this unfortunate fact back in July 2004, when I looked more closely at DNS packet captures for debugging purposes. Even in my limited sample, the number leaking name servers was so high that systematically contacting their operators and convincing them to change their configurations seemed unfeasible (and many of them were located in regions which are not exactly known for their cooperative spirit when it comes to such matters). Today, I looked again at a few unofficial servers. Quite a few of them are operated by apparently respectable organizations with an AS number etc. (definitely not the backyard servers behind a cable modem I would expect in an attack). It is hard to tell if the more shady ones legitimately redirect customer traffic, and unintentionally leak these records to the general Internet, or attempt an actual attack. (I'm not sure how to tell them apart at the protocol level. Maybe I'm missing something.) Many of the unofficial records have been unchanged for quite some (i.e. predating the current "pharming" craze). Even the DNS cache poisoning case described in the ISC diary could be the unwanted consequence of an oversimplified DNS configuration (wildcard RRs for *.com instead of a proper DNS zone). Are any ISPs actually willing to disconnect customer name servers which serve unofficial zones? I don't believe that many ISPs would try to exercise this much control over the packets their customers send. Furthermore, there are apparently some reasons for running such servers which generally are considered legitimate. Should we monitor for evidence of hijacks (unofficial NS and SOA records are good indicators)? Should we actively scan for authoritative name servers which return unofficial data? I don't think this makes sense, even if we could strongly discourage the practice. Right now, I suspect that many people rediscovered the relative weakness of the domain name system and started looking for anomalies, and that's why we see an increasing number of reports -- not because of an increasing number of actual attacks.

18 37

APRICOT 2006 withdrawn from Bangalore, India - moves to Perth
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 30 Mar '05

30 Mar '05

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [APRICOT-INFO] APRICOT 2006 News! Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:59:07 +1000 From: Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com> (apologies for duplicates) Dear Colleagues, Due to unforeseen circumstances the APIA Board has reluctantly agreed to set aside the award of APRICOT to Bangalore, India for 2006. APRICOT 2006 now will be held in Perth, Australia from Wednesday 22nd February to Friday 3rd March 2006. The host organisation for APRICOT 2006 will be the Western Australian Internet Association (WAIA), the runner up bid for APRICOT 2006. The venue will be the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre. More information will be on the website for APRICOT 2006, www.2006.apricot.net, which will be available shortly. best wishes! Philip Smith Secretary, APIA Board _______________________________________________ Apricot-info mailing list Apricot-info(a)apricot.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apricot-info

1 0