November 2008 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Ixia, Juniper going green?
by Glen Kent 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=166871 I wonder what impact this would put on other vendors to turn down their power consumptions and turn, as Juniper and Ixia like to put it - Green! BTW, the specs are a little skewed because they're only measuring power consumption when the router is only forwarding traffic, i.e., there is no traffic going to CPU. Also any idea about the genesis of this ECR initiative (http://www.ecrinitiative.org/) and what their eventual goal is ? Glen

3 3

Savvis contact
by Jeff Rooney 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

Any Savvis net ops out there, can you please contact me off list? Thanks -- Jeff Rooney jtrooney(a)nexdlevel.com

1 0

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sendingvs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Scott Weeks 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

--- joelja(a)bogus.com wrote: From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> Scott Weeks wrote: > Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a > non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being > held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic > that was not following US regulations from hitting the US? Ask ISPs with networks on both side of the US Canada border who have the candian government for a customer, they do it today. ---------------------------------------------- They stop the bits from flowing on one part of the ISP's network to the Canadian Government and not the other part? scott

2 1

RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sendingvs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Scott Weeks 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

--- michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: "That's not how companies work. What you see as a single company operating a single worldwide network, is actually a web of companies with interlocking directorships and share structures. In each country they will probably have 3 or 4 corporate entities." Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic that was not following US regulations from hitting the US? A:HNLL7710# configure router 1500 bgp as-path-ignore us-based-as-paths ? Not there... ;-) "Spend some time hanging out with finance and legal people in a big company. You may find it almost as fascinating as designing networks." As much as I hate to admit it, I believe I'd enjoy geeking-out on that for a while... scott

2 1

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs r equesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Alexander Harrowell 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Have we yet had a peering war that was genuinely international, i.e. the partition was between net X in country Y and net Z in country W? Rather than between X's Y and Z's Y divisions, which wd both be in Y jurisdiction? - original message - Subject: Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> Date: 05/11/2008 10:47 pm --- herrin-nanog(a)dirtside.com wrote: That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need. --------------------------------------------- Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil it can be regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the network? For my part, this is not an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument (red herring). It is a valid question with operational impact. scott

1 0

RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Lamar Owen 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Larry Sheldon LarrySheldon(a)cox.net wrote: > How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran [snip] > > But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too > > simple to be real regulation. :-) > One World Government at last! Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic outline, and the most difficult thing of all about regulating 'the Internet.' So, would prefacing my outline with 'In the USA, this could be done for that portion of 'the Internet' provider infrastructure within the jurisdiction of the USA' close that hole to a degree? (not really) Like I said, I am not touching the definition of the 'complete Internet' (and I even left a clue to this hole in that line).

3 2

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Scott Weeks 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

--- LarrySheldon(a)cox.net wrote: : Which government? : Which government? : In which country? : How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran ------------------------------------------ Oops. Note to self: read all responses before replying. Apologies to the list folk for redundancy... : One World Government at last! bzzzt! wrong answer. :-) scott --- LarrySheldon(a)cox.net wrote: From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon(a)cox.net> To: undisclosed-recipients: ; CC: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:12:36 -0600 Lamar Owen wrote: > Charles Wyble charles(a)thewybles.com wrote: >> Lamar Owen wrote: >>> There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this >>> list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a >>> government run and regulated backbone); Which government? > >> Right. But what do we want this to look like? > > Well, since I've already stepped out on a limb, here goes my try at a > rough outline of what such a regulation might look like (with the > caveat that this is likely too simple to actually make it as a > regulation): Which government? > > 1.) Define the regulation's scope, that it is, who is being regulated > and why. In this case, I would say 'transit-free Internet carriers' > are the who, and to maintain a 'complete Internet' is the why. In which country? > > 2.) Allocate regulatory responsibility and enforcement authority to > an entity. I would suggest the FCC would be appropriate. (This > outline might then be the start of a 47 CFR 221 or similar). Is every part of "the Internet" going to recognize the sovereignty of the United States Federal Communications Commission (assuming they staff up to be able to administer this and the Fairness Doctrine)? > > 3.) Define 'transit-free Internet carrier.' This has been done > already by Patrick Gilmore and others, and done quite well. > > 4.) Define 'complete Internet.' I'm staying away from that one. ;-) > > 5.) Define 'peering arrangement.' This has also been done quite well > by others, so I'll not repeat that here. > > 6.) Mandate that all transit-free Internet carriers shall maintain > peering arrangements with all other transit-free Internet carriers to > maintain a complete Internet (citing some law that makes a 'complete > Internet' a national security matter, or somesuch, and belongs in 47 > CFR 221 as a result). How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran > > 7.) Mandate that only carriers who voluntarily accept this regulation > may use the term 'Tier 1 Internet Provider' and provide penalties for > Internet providers who wish to 'opt-out' of the regulation but who do > not obtain transit from another provider. IOW, become a Tier 2, no > need for regulation. > > 8.) Authorize the issuance of a 'Tier 1 Internet Provider' license > (that must be renewed periodically, with documentation supporting the > Tier 1 status) to participating transit-free Internet carriers (for a > fee to cover the opex). > > 9.) Authorize the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to enforce. > > This is, IMHO, the best case regulatory scenario. But I reserve the > right to be wrong. Not that it is a desired scenario, but as far as > regulation goes I think it would be the scenario that does the least > harm. > >> Hmmmm. I need to read that over. Thank you for the reference. > > You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief > operator. Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of > that job (and a part I do not miss). Radio (both amateur and > professional) used to be, prior to the late 1920's, an unregulated > free-for-all similar to the current state of the Internet; but that > proved to be unworkable, eventually producing the Communications Act > of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission with > real authority to regulate radio. > > If you want to see just how technically ridiculous such regulation > can get, research the term 'CONELRAD' for a horrifying example. > > Now, on the flipside, current providers who also happen to be LEC's > covered by 47 CFR 51 might actually not mind the addition of IP > carriage to Part 51's scope. Makes everything consistent for them > and their legal departments. But Part 51 is quite a bit more > cumbersome than the simple 'Regulate the Tier 1's only' outline > above, and carriers who are not already covered by Part 51 would > likely raise a holy tantrum about it. > > But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too > simple to be real regulation. :-) One World Government at last! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs

1 0

Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Scott Weeks 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Here I go again with networks are borderless, global entities, not a US (or any country) regulable thingie... ;-) Would the below regulation cover only the part of their network that is in the US or will it cover the global scope of their network? If only the US part (I'd hate to think the US would try regulate someone's network in another country) then, say, part of their network in the other countries doesn't conform to US regulations. How will the regulators require the company stop the non-conforming bits from crossing the associated physical borders. No need to answer. Rhetorical question... scott --- lowen(a)pari.edu wrote: From: Lamar Owen <lowen(a)pari.edu> To: Charles Wyble <charles(a)thewybles.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:59:09 -0500 Charles Wyble charles(a)thewybles.com wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: > > There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to limit the events: > > 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated backbone); > Right. But what do we want this to look like? Well, since I've already stepped out on a limb, here goes my try at a rough outline of what such a regulation might look like (with the caveat that this is likely too simple to actually make it as a regulation): 1.) Define the regulation's scope, that it is, who is being regulated and why. In this case, I would say 'transit-free Internet carriers' are the who, and to maintain a 'complete Internet' is the why. 2.) Allocate regulatory responsibility and enforcement authority to an entity. I would suggest the FCC would be appropriate. (This outline might then be the start of a 47 CFR 221 or similar). 3.) Define 'transit-free Internet carrier.' This has been done already by Patrick Gilmore and others, and done quite well. 4.) Define 'complete Internet.' I'm staying away from that one. ;-) 5.) Define 'peering arrangement.' This has also been done quite well by others, so I'll not repeat that here. 6.) Mandate that all transit-free Internet carriers shall maintain peering arrangements with all other transit-free Internet carriers to maintain a complete Internet (citing some law that makes a 'complete Internet' a national security matter, or somesuch, and belongs in 47 CFR 221 as a result). 7.) Mandate that only carriers who voluntarily accept this regulation may use the term 'Tier 1 Internet Provider' and provide penalties for Internet providers who wish to 'opt-out' of the regulation but who do not obtain transit from another provider. IOW, become a Tier 2, no need for regulation. 8.) Authorize the issuance of a 'Tier 1 Internet Provider' license (that must be renewed periodically, with documentation supporting the Tier 1 status) to participating transit-free Internet carriers (for a fee to cover the opex). 9.) Authorize the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to enforce. This is, IMHO, the best case regulatory scenario. But I reserve the right to be wrong. Not that it is a desired scenario, but as far as regulation goes I think it would be the scenario that does the least harm. > Hmmmm. I need to read that over. Thank you for the reference. You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator. Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I do not miss). Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to the late 1920's, an unregulated free-for-all similar to the current state of the Internet; but that proved to be unworkable, eventually producing the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission with real authority to regulate radio. If you want to see just how technically ridiculous such regulation can get, research the term 'CONELRAD' for a horrifying example. Now, on the flipside, current providers who also happen to be LEC's covered by 47 CFR 51 might actually not mind the addition of IP carriage to Part 51's scope. Makes everything consistent for them and their legal departments. But Part 51 is quite a bit more cumbersome than the simple 'Regulate the Tier 1's only' outline above, and carriers who are not already covered by Part 51 would likely raise a holy tantrum about it. But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too simple to be real regulation. :-)

1 0

Google Contact
by Erol 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Can someone from Google/Gmail contact me offlist. This is with regards to some mail issues we're experiencing. I wasn't able to find anything of use on the gmail site, or their user forum. Thx. /erol -- erol(a)easydns.com easyDNS Technologies Inc.

1 0

RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Lamar Owen 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Larry Sheldon LarrySheldon(a)cox.net wote: > Do you see that as more than a minor nuisance? > I see it as a deal breaker. Yet another reason I vastly prefer no such regulation. Yet endusers with clout (such as NASA, who was on both sides of this latest partitioning) may try to get some form of regulation of the providers in their respective countries, and then it will be a major pain for everyone.

1 0