December 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Jay Ashworth 23 Dec '10

23 Dec '10

----- Original Message ----- > From: "JC Dill" <jcdill.lists(a)gmail.com> > On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty. > > There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of > > all > > the wires on the poles. > > > Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation? Sure, though they're a bit harder to find on the web than you'd think; it took me almost 20 minutes to find this one when I wrote the piece: http://baylink.pitas.com/#LASTMILE Cheers, -- jra

2 2

Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Steve Schultze 23 Dec '10

23 Dec '10

George Bonser wrote: > What would any provider think if a city said "sure, you can have access > to our residents' eyeballs. It will cost you $5 per subscriber per month". > Would Comcast or anyone go for that? Dave Temkin wrote: > These are exactly what Franchise Agreements are for. Yes, cities charge > MSOs and LECs for access all the time. I've been lurking on this thread for awhile, but I feel a need to weigh in here. There are some critical distinctions between a city imposing conditions on access to its property and a telecommunications company imposing conditions on access to its network. There are also some important limitations to the cases in which cities can indeed impose any access restrictions, which prompt the question of why parallel policy limitations do not necessarily apply to last-mile companies. First, the justification for cities requiring things of companies in order to gain access to the local market are grounded in practical and policy considerations. On a very concrete level, putting wires in the ground requires permission from the city for rights-of-way (and such activities have genuine costs for the city). This permission comes in the form of the "Franchise Agreements" that Dave refers to. From a policy perspective, the city has an interest in ensuring that it gets the greatest value for its citizens out of the valuable last-mile concessions it grants to private parties. Historically, this meant that last-mile rights-of-way were a hook for enforcing customer service requirements, disciplining pricing, ensuring universal service, and supporting diversity of programming and "public access." Negotiating these terms with each municipality was the price that companies had to pay for monopoly access to local markets. What I think George's comment does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local) public, whereas private constraints on local access are (by design) motivated by profit. Now, all of these requirements apply to providers of cable video content under the terms of the Cable Act of 1984 (which created a new Title in the Communications Act). None of them applied to LECs, which traditionally had a blanket permission to build out for their telecommunications services. The exception is for LECs that have started to offer video services. In that case, the same requirements kick in (for the video portion of those services). The exception to THAT is for states in which the LECs have successfully lobbied the state government to give them a blanket license to deploy video services statewide without negotiating locally (Michigan, for example, as opposed to Massachusetts). Whether or not you think such statewide agreements are a good thing tends to be a funciton of who you represent. In any event, the FCC has also further weakened localities' ability to impose requirements on even the video portion of these services (22 FCC Rcd. 5101 and 22 FCC Rcd. 19633). Importantly, for the NANOG crowd, none of these local controls applies to the broadband portion of such services. This all goes back to our artificially siloed Communications Act and some decisions made by the FCC almost a decade ago. The 2002 Cable Modem Order said that localities had no power to exercise authority over the broadband portion of such services. That means that they cannot demand payment for access to rights-of-way for broadband services, but it also means that they cannot impose public interest requirements on the provision of that service... for example that such service be provided universally to all citizens or that access to different types of content be provided on a non-discriminatory basis. The reasoning was that these services were not the video services envisioned in the Cable Act of 1984, but rather broadband services that the FCC was newly classifying as "deregulated." The 2002 Cable Modem Order was in fact the event that precipitated the 2005 "Brand X" Supreme Court decision that cemented the FCC's authority to reclassify last-mile broadband services not as common carriers but rather in a vaguely deregulated service. This helped lead to our modern debate about net neutrality. These jurisdictional turf wars are also at the heart of fights to allow cities to create municipally owned broadband networks that may then be leased on equal terms to all comers. It is also the reason that cities do not have the legal authority to compel "open access" or "non-discrimination" requirements on private networks within their boundaries. Broadband providers have understandably sought to gain near-exclusive control over their customers, and the legal framework helps them to avoid municipal networks and other requirements. Whether or not you believe that the local franchising regime that emerged in the 1980s makes sense for internet access today (not that it applies to broadband anyway), you must at least admit a fundamentally different incentive model compared to that of private companies. Whereas localities must now provide equal access to all companies that wish to do a physical buildout, those companies do not have any locally imposed requirement to provide equal access of use of their networks. Regards, Steve

40 91

Post positive reviews
by Eugene Zola 23 Dec '10

23 Dec '10

Google’s Huge Change and How it affects you. • Anyone can now post bad reviews and kill your rank. • We post good reviews and improve your rank. • We post good reviews to keep others from killing your rank. Google: Judge, Jury and Online Shopping Executioner Google rank is based on reviews of your business? Google Statement: "...in the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience. The algorithm we incorporated into our search rankings represents an initial solution to this issue, and Google users are now getting a better experience as a result." This means that anyone can write bad reviews about your business and lower your ranking. We knew that getting good reviews and not getting bad reviews was always important. Now it is a must to have good reviews for your business to keep the rank safe or to improve rank with Google. We post positive reviews for your company. We have the experience and ability to post hundreds of positive reviews that are all unique content and posted on unique IP addresses. wwwpostgoodreviews.com

2 1

inquiry on using POS
by Jinwha Chung 23 Dec '10

23 Dec '10

Hi, there; First of all, thanks you all for your unintended and unnoticed help what I’ve got from nanog. I’m looking for a reference case of a point-to-point POS link. My potential customer asked me to configure their nodes using 40G POS interface cards. The distance of their nodes is between 10 km to 50 km. They are considering Cisco CRS for their core router. I’ve found that CRS has 2 kinds of POS card. One support only up to 2km. so, this one is out. >From the datasheet, the other one can support point-to-point connection up to 80km using this DCU. Dispersion compensating unit. I’ve talked about this configuration with people and no one would recommend those kind of things. Personally, I prefer 10G Ethernet with XENPAK ZR optics. Here is what I want to know. Is there anyone who are using POS with DCUs (without DWDM or something like that) between nodes of less than 80km apart? If there, would you recommend it to others? Jinwha Chung CCIE#11776 u-Eng'g Team | u-Telecom Global Business Unit | SK Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd South Korea TEL 82-2-3700-8822 FAX 82-2-3700-8999

2 1

C/D[WDM]
by Drew Weaver 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

Anyone have any opinion on a user friendly and low-to-mid-priced CWDM or DWDM system? We need to take one pair of dark fiber and get about 5-6 10G ports on both sides. This is the info that the DF provider has given us on the route: Operating Wavelength: 1310/1550nm Maximum Attenuation: 0.35 dB/km for 1310 wavelength 0.25 dB/km for 1550 wavelength Any suggestions would be tremendously helpful. thanks, -Drew

6 7

Skype info
by Tim Connolly 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

Any word as to the root cause of the skype outage(s)? Tim Connolly Director of IT FareCompare 18111 Preston Rd Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75252 Email: tim.does.not.want.spam.connolly(a)farecompare.com Phone: +1 (972) 588-xxx Cell: +1 (214) 882-xxxx Web: www.farecompare.com Find deals from your airport | Connect with FareCompare on Facebook

5 5

DDoS Detection with netflow?
by Thomas Magill 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

Has anyone run across any DDoS/anomoly detection applications that are based on netflow, preferable v9? I ran across a really old application called Panoptis, but it does not appear to have any recent development. Does anyone have any experience with this product or anything similar? Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 tmagill(a)providecommerce.com<mailto:tmagill@providecommerce.com> provide-commerce 4840 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 ProFlowers<http://www.proflowers.com/> | redENVELOPE<http://www.redenvelope.com/> | Cherry Moon Farms<http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/> | Shari's Berries<http://www.berries.com/>

2 1

COMSNETS 2011 (Call for Participation)
by Ramana Kompella 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

** Apologies if you received multiple copies of this call for participation ** ** Conference less than 2 weeks away ** COMSNETS 2011 The THIRD International Conference on COMmunication Systems and NETworks January 4-8, 2011, Bangalore, India http://www.comsnets.org Email: comsnets2011(a)ece.iisc.ernet.in (In Co-operation with ACM SIGMOBILE) (Technically Co-Sponsored by IEEE COMSOC) The Third International Conference on COMmunication Systems and NETworkS (COMSNETS) will be held in Bangalore, India, from 4 January 2011 to 8 January 2011. COMSNETS is a premier international conference dedicated to addressing advances in Networking and Communications Systems, and Telecommunications services. The goal of the conference is to create a world-class gathering of researchers from academia and industry, practitioners, business leaders, intellectual property experts, and venture capitalists, providing a forum for discussing cutting edge research, and directions for new innovative business and technology. The conference will include a highly selective technical program consisting of parallel tracks of submitted papers, a small set of invited papers on important and timely topics from well-known leaders in the field, and poster sessions of work in progress. Focused workshops and panel discussions will be held on emerging topics to allow for a lively exchange of ideas. International business and government leaders will be invited to share their perspectives, thus complementing the technical program. Registration site: http://www.comsnets.org/registration.html. Heavy student discounts available. We look forward to your participation. Conference Scope ---------------- Internet Architecture and Protocols Network-based Applications Video Distribution (IPTV, Mobile Video, Video on Demand) Network Operations and Management Broadband and Cellular Networks (3G/4G, WiMAX/LTE) Mesh, Sensor and PAN Networks Communication Software (Cognitive Radios, DSA, SDR) Wireless Operating Systems and Mobile Platforms Peer-to-peer Networking Cognitive Radio and White Space Networking Optical Networks Network Security & Cyber Security Technologies Cloud and Utility computing Storage Area Networks Next Generation Web Architectures Vehicular Networking Energy-Efficient Networking Network Science and Emergent Behavior in Socio-Technical Networks Social Networking Analysis, Middleware and Applications Networking Technologies for Smart Energy Grids Disruption/Delay Tolerant Networking Conference Highlights --------------------- Conference Inaugural Speaker: Prof. Raj Jain, Washington U. , St. Louis, USA Banquet speakers: Dr. Rajeev Rastogi, Yahoo Research, India Mr. Venkat Rajendran, Billonways Holdings Pvt. Ltd, India Keynote Speakers: Prof. Don Towsley, U. Mass Amherst, USA Dr. Partho Mishra, Cisco, India Mr. Subu Goparaju, Infosys, India Dr. Pravin Bhagwat, AirTight Networks, India Dr. Jean Bolot, Sprint, USA Mr. Michael Eisler, NetApp Inc, USA Workshops: WISARD (4, 5 Jan) NetHealth (4 Jan) IAMCOM (5 Jan) Mobile India 2011 (7 Jan) Technical Paper and Poster Sessions Ph.D Forum Panel Discussions Demos & Exhibits General Co-Chairs ----------------- David B. Johnson, Rice University, USA Anurag Kumar, IISc Bangalore, India Technical Program Co-Chairs --------------------------- Jon Crowcroft, U. of Cambridge, UK D. Manjunath, IIT Bombay, India Archan Misra, Telcordia Tech., USA Steering Committee Co-Chairs ---------------------------- Uday Desai, IIT Hyderabad, India Giridhar Mandyam, Qualcomm, USA Sanjoy Paul, Infosys, India Rajeev Shorey, NIIT University, India G. Venkatesh, SASKEN, India Panel Co-Chairs --------------- Aditya Akella, U. of Wisconsin, USA Venkat Padmanabhan, MSR, India Ph.D Forum Chair ---------------- Bhaskaran Raman, IIT Bombay, India Publications Chair ------------------ Varsha Apte, IIT Bombay, India Demos and Exhibits Co-Chairs ---------------------------- Aaditeshwar Seth, IIT Delhi, India Ajay Bakre, Netapps, India Sponsorship Chair ----------------- Sudipta Maitra, Delhi, india Workshop Chairs --------------- Sharad Jaiswal, Alcatel-Lucent, India Ravindran Kaliappa, CUNY, USA Neelesh Mehta, IISc Bangalore, India Mobile India 2011 Co-Chairs --------------------------- Gene Landy, Ruperto-Israel & Weiner, USA Rajaraghavan Setlur, SASKEN, India Sridhar Varadharajan, SASKEN, India Publicity Co-Chair ------------------ Augustin Chaintreau, TTL, France Kameswari Chebrolu, IIT Bombay, India Song Chong, KAIST, Korea Ramana Kompella, Purdue Univ, USA Nishanth Sastry, U. of Cambridge, UK Web Co-Chairs ------------- Santhana Krishnan, IIT Bombay, India Vinay Veerappa, SASKEN, India International Advisory Committee -------------------------------- K. K. Ramakrishnan, AT&T, USA Victor Bahl, Microsoft Research, USA Sunghyun Choi, Seoul National U., Korea Sajal Das, U. Texas at Arlington, USA B. N. Jain, IIT Delhi, India P. R. Kumar, UIUC, USA Anurag Kumar, IISc, Bangalore, India L. M. Patnaik, IISc, Bangalore, India Krithi Ramamritham, IIT Bombay, India Parmesh Ramanathan, U. Wisconsin, USA Krishan Sabnani, Alcatel-Lucent, USA Kang Shin, U. Michigan, USA Nitin Vaidya, U. Illinois, USA University Partners: -------------------- IIT Bombay, IIT Delhi, IISc Bangalore, IIT Hyderabad, NIIT University, BITS Pilani Patrons: -------- CISCO, Infosys, Alcatel Lucent, Intel, Microsoft Research, IBM Research, Sasken, Datacipher, Mobile Monday Bangalore

1 0

I can't access this page. (http://www.xbox.com)
by Shinichi Kuboki 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

Hi Everybody We are ISP in Japan to which IP 49/8 is allocated from JPNIC. It seems that it is set that IP that starts from 49/8 is refused on your website. (http://www.xbox.com) As APNIC has permitted us to allocate the customer IP 49/8 (Aug 2010), please remove IP 49/8 from the filtering No. list of your website. Please refer to the following for detailed information on 49/8 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml

1 0

FCC filings against Comcast
by Randy Epstein 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

FCC petitions are piling in against Comcast: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064165 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020923751 Full disclose: I've signed one as well that should be filed tomorrow. Also: WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 -- The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., issued the following news release: Warning that a huge media monopoly would drive up cable television prices and stifle the free flow of information, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today urged the Department of Justice to block Comcast's planned takeover of NBC Universal. Regards, Randy

1 1