February 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Scott Weeks 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

--- paul(a)vix.com wrote: ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... Beware, the end is near! www.onboardmovies.com/publicity/Synopsis/images/0021553.jpg scott

1 0

Re: motivating security ....
by J. Oquendo 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

Let's look at the cost factor of using Windows in a quick dirty fashion and why you have to love their scheme. On top of ripping you off, they'd like to sell you security atop of the garbage they've already flooded the world with. <crapaganda> 1 Corporate office 2000 users * 75.00 per WinXP professional 5 Exchange servers * 500.00 per software 2 Win2003 servers * per seat low factor of 25.00 per seat Some Terminal licenses for RDesktop (l)users * low factor 100 per seat per person 2000 * $75.00 $150,000.00 5 * 500 = 2500.00 25.00 per seat * 2000 50,000.00 100.00 terminal licenses * 100 employees (management) 10,000.00 $212,500.00 sounds reasonable. Last I did anything MS, I recall Exchange being something closer to $60.00 per seat (1st Q 2004) Windows updates once a month ... total time 5 minutes 5min * 2007 machines downtime... 10035 minutes lost productivity Possible virus/security risk ... Estimated downtime to upgrade say once per month at 5 minutes, another 10035 minutes. Let's say this is once per quarter 2508 minutes downtime... Total so far 12,543 minutes - 10035 and a possible 2508 in security risks/breaches - a month in lost computing time. Let's say the company made 15,000,000.00 a year this breaks down into about: 41095.00 per day (* 365 days per year) 1712.00 an hour 28.53 a minute Let's say 10% of this lost time affects profits: 1254 minutes * 28.53 per minute = $35,787.00 Ok, let me be realistic, let's say only 5% of the time it affects profit: 627 minutes * 28.53 = $17,888.00 * 12 mos Not good or realistic enough, fine, 1% of the time it affects profits, 125.43 * 28.53 = 3578.51 per month in lost revenue from downtime. $42,942.21 per year in lost revenue </crapaganda> Why should MS get off their rears when corporations are stupid enough to continue doing business with a shoddy company. MS isn't doing anything I can't do on BSD, Linux or Solaris using OpenOffice or other program. Why do I use Windows still here and there... Utter laziness to swap out my drive. Utter laziness to replace Visio with Kivio. Just sheer laziness that's all. Would I run a production farm on Windows, as fast as I would pierce my ear with a harpoon. I blame the end user at the end of it all: <sarcasm> Mom "Tommy don't touch the stove you will get burned" Tommy "Ouch I burned myself" Mom "Next time be more careful" Tommy "Ouch I touched it again" Mom "Tommy you have to look at what you're doing" Tommy "Ouch, yet again" Tommy is the idiot here not his stove, not his mom, not the gas fueling the fire, Tommy. </sarcasm> -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo echo @infiltrated|sed 's/^/sil/g;s/$/.net/g' http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey

1 0

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

> IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP > Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of > people will watch the same content at the same time. They do. Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels), that doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have millions of viewers. > The usage model > that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before > cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to > choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not > made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to > have failed to notice this. 10 or 1000 channels it's going to be better than not using it. I don't see the logic in using it for nothing because it's not good for some things. There are local factors that may mean some countries adopt it. In the UK all spectrum is sold, as we turn off analog it's not a given that the broadcasters will be able to buy that spectrum for HD. When we want 10 HD Olympics channels IPTV may be the only way for a large portion of the 20M or so viewers to get it. > The point is the more > possible live content there is, the less multicast makes sense. > Compounding this, fewer people care to watch live content, preferring > instead to record and watch later on their own schedule, or be served > on-demand. In this usage model, multicast is not helpful either. Because they want to watch later doesn't make multicast no use. Who is going to pay for their time shift bandwidth use? Why would someone pay when a home device can do the time shift and make good use of the live multicast stream? They'll save the download cash for stuff that never was available live to them or they forgot to record, unless someone makes it appear to have no cost. brandon

6 5

Re: Every incident is an opportunity (was Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers)
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

> > During the cold war American kids > > were trained to hide beneath their desktops in caseof a nuclear > > attack. Much good that would have done. It could have kept them from running around the streets screaming we're all going to die. It may well save people if they are on the edge of the survival zone, that may not be a good idea but at least they know what to expect I don't pretend to know the real reason but keeping control is usually better even if you can't change the outcome. brandon

2 1

Fwd: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Alexander Harrowell 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com> Date: Feb 12, 2007 4:13 PM Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11 To: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> Paul, that's very interesting. A query: "AMT Site: A multicast-enabled network not connected to the multicast backbone served by an AMT Gateway. It could also be a stand-alone AMT Gateway." Should that read: a multicast-enabled network, not connected to the multicast backbone, served by an AMT Gateway? It looks like it from the meat of the RFC. On 12 Feb 2007 06:14:00 +0000, Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> wrote: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-00 is what i > expect. note: i've drunk that koolaid & am helping on the distribution > side. > -- > Paul Vixie >

2 1

Re: Every incident is an opportunity (was Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers)
by Gregory Hicks 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0500 > From: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(a)druid.net> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:51:38 -0600 > Dave Pooser <dave.nanog(a)alfordmedia.com> wrote: > > Marshall beat me to it. I have a T-shirt that says "Mac: So > > simple my parents can use it." It's funny because it's true. > > Why do I keep hearing "My parents are stupid" in these sorts of > comments? Just wait. They get smarter as you get older. My father was NOT stupid. He could use several of the more popular "word processors" (Wang being the last one he had used) but he could NOT, for the life of him, get used to using MS Word. Or anything else associated with Windoze. The command sequences just "didn't make sense to him ("Why do I have to go push "start" when I want to shut the system down?") --------------------------------------------------------------------- I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." - Benjamin Franklin "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

1 0

RE: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

> [Perhaps my viewpoint is skewed because channel-delivered TV content > in Canada is horrible; it's almost as bad as American TV. I seem to > think that broadcast TV in the UK more tolerable, although I haven't > really seen it since I left the UK in the mid 90s so perhaps > I'm just > deluded.] We've gone digital in the UK (DVB-T) which includes an electronic program guide. So the average consumer CAN buy a PVR with digital receivers (yes plural) which they simply plug in, scan for channels, and use. Pause and rewind live TV, record programs according to the EPG. And it is all free, i.e. funded by TV commercials just like analog TV was. Of course, the cable companies, Sky satellite TV and the telephone company (ADSL provider) are offering some sort of PVR-like box with a selection of broadcast and pre-recorded content. Note: I happen to work for said telephone company (BT) but I have nothing to do with either our DSL or TV offerings. > Cursory consideration of your examples above provide clues as to > which way the scale is tipping; radio has for a long time been a way > to promote record sales, and the video stores here are now half-full > with boxed sets of TV series on DVD. Here too. Especially at Christmas time. I've noticed the same thing in Russia where homegrown TV series are in every video shop. > It looks to me like people increasingly want their content > on-demand, > and that there's a growing industry supplying that demand. And I don't think it depends on culture. People are people all over the world. Everyone wants to control their own time. Everyone wants predictability of their outgoings, i.e. trend towards flat rates. So shifting TV from a flat-fee all-you-can-eat broadcast model to a pay-per-use network model is a non-starter. It will never be more than a drop in the bucket. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: motivating security, was Re: Every incident...
by Alexander Harrowell 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

d Lewis <Ed.Lewis(a)neustar.biz> wrote: > > > I don't mean to say that the car owners or computer users are free > from blame. But holding a sentiment of just blaming users is not > helpful. OTOH, if there was something the operators could clearly do > to stop this, someone would have suggested it by now. (There are all > them laws about snooping traffic, etc.) > > I thought I had a conclusion ... but I don't. Sure. Demonising sufferers didn't stop the spread of AIDS, probably made it worse (Saudi Arabia has one of the fastest growing HIV problems, they say). But shouting at people to wear condoms/use a firewall has diminishing returns. It's complicated.

1 0

Re: motivating security, was Re: Every incident...
by Alexander Harrowell 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

On 2/12/07, Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis(a)neustar.biz> wrote: > > Security is never something I should want, it is always > something I have to have. No-one wants "security", they want not-trouble. Similar to the point that no-one wants energy, they want warm rooms and cold beers. Perhaps we need a concept of "security efficiency"? Security has to resign itself to being > second-class in the hearts and minds of society. Security has to be > provided in response to it's environment and not complain about it's > lot in life. > > (I realize that this post doesn't say anything about people "dying" - > I've heard that in other contexts.) Yup >Society holds individuals accountable for many forms of irresponsible > >behaviour. > > This is true, but individuals are not held entirely accountable. A > reckless driver can cause a multi-car accident on an exit ramps and > cause a tie up for the entire morning rush. Are the "victims" of > this compensated? What about the person who loses a job offer > because of a missed interview and suffers fallout from that? > > And maybe it isn't recklessness. A failed water pump may cause a > breakdown, followed by an accident, etc. Mentioned just to spread > the analogy out. The whole logic of modern computing is that everything migrates towards users. Why shouldn't security? After all, if people didn't let the nasties in, 'twould be very hard to start a botnet.. >There's no need to make exceptions for > >computer users. Make computer-owners/users pay in full for damages > >caused by their equipment with no discount for incompetence. > > If that happened, then computer users would be the exception. I > can't think of any situation in which an accident might occur and the > one causing the accident pays in full to everyone. > [snip] True, but there are plenty of examples of either market (insurance) or government (regulation) solutions to problems where the individual's misfortune also falls on society. Arguably the bulk of the costs of malware proliferation is an externality - the benefits go to the enemy, but costs aren't restricted to the hacked. Not even close. I used to work for a gov't facility whose mission was science. They > had a serious telecommunications problem on their hands. Although it > was important to solve, they funded science first - up until all the > telecom problems became "too annoying" and money was allocated to > solve the problem. > The appropriate analogy is the Great Stink of 1858. London had been suffering from not having sewerage for years, and poor people had been dying in droves from cholera, but nobody with the power to do anything about it cared enough until the Thames got so bad the committee rooms on the river side of Whitehall stank so much nobody would go in them. Then, wham, out came the chequebook, the compulsory purchase powers, and in came Joseph Bazalgette, with the result of an infrastructure used to this day.

2 1

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

> I think you're presupposing that the concept of "channels" is > something that will persist. For some time. There's quite an industry with an interest in maintaining that. It probably won't vanish until the current generations die. Channel based and discrete delivery of content (radio vs records, tv/cinema vs vhs/dvd) have coexisted for some time. If one loses ground it's not a problem unless you take sides. brandon

2 1